LIBRARY 

OF    THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 
Class 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/contentioveritatOOunivrich 


CONTENTIO    VERITATIS 

ESSAYS 

IN 

CONSTRUCTIVE   THEOLOGY 


First  Edition  .  March,  1902 

Reprinted         .  ...       April,  xgoa 

Reprinted         .  .  August,  1902 


CONTENTIO   VERITATIS 

ESSAYS  IN  CONSTRUCTIVE 
THEOLOGY 


SIX   OXFORD   TUTORS 


^  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


LONDON 

JOHN    MURRAY,   ALBEMARLE   STREET 

1902 


lv_      C. 


GENERA 


PREFACE 

THE  beginning  of  the  Twentieth  Century  finds  the 
Church  of  England  face  to  face  with  some  very- 
urgent  problems.  Of  these  the  most  clamorous,  and 
perhaps  the  least  important,  is  the  controversy  which 
rages  round  the  Ornaments  Rubric  and  kindred  topics — 
the  problem  which  the  daily  press  has  dignified  by  the 
title  of  "The  Crisis  in  the  Church."  Those  who  take  a 
wider  view  of  the  course  of  religious  thought  during  the 
past  century  will  not  be  disposed  to  treat  these  disputes 
about  ritual  quite  so  seriously.  They  will  recognise  that 
more  pressing  than  any  ritualistic  controversy  is  a  problem, 
or  group  of  problems,  which  touches  not  the  Anglican 
Communion  only,  but  every  Christian  body.  The  acrimo- 
nious dispute  between  Natural  Science  and  the  old 
Orthodoxy,  which  agitated  the  last  generation,  is  happily 
a  thing  of  the  past.  No  section  of  the  Church  that  counts 
for  much  now  denies  the  facts  of  geology,  and  Darwinism 
is  no  longer  regarded  as  the  foe  of  Christian  faith.  A 
great  many  of  the  clergy  have  accepted  the  principle  of 
criticism,  and  are  prepared  to  apply  it  with  some  boldness 
at  least  to  the  Old  Testament.  But  many  even  of  those 
who  are  quite  uncompromising  in  their  acceptance  of 
critical  results  seem  to  have  an  inadequate  appreciation 
of   the  changes  which   such    an    acceptance    necessarily 


vi  PREFACE 

involves,  not  only  in  our  attitude  towards  the  Bible,  but 
also  in  the  whole  tone  and  temper  of  theology  and  re- 
ligious teaching.  And  the  bare  acceptance  of  the  critical 
attitude  towards  the  Bible  has  as  yet  very  imperfectly 
permeated  the  bulk  of  the  clergy,  or  even  the  instructed 
religious  laity ;  while  very  little  has  been  done  to 
modify,  except  by  a  silence  which  often  escapes  notice, 
the  ordinary  religious  instruction  of  pulpit,  Bible-class, 
and  Sunday-school.  Meanwhile,  especially  among  younger 
men  and  women  of  fair  education,  there  is  a  widespread 
unsettlement  and  uneasiness.  There  is  a  vague  feeling 
that  the  old  Orthodoxy  is  impossible  ;  people  suspect  that 
much  that  was  once  commonly  believed  is  no  longer 
tenable,  but  they  do  not  know  how  much,  nor  by  what 
it  is  to  be  replaced. 

The  writers  of  the  present  work  are  well  aware  that  the 
needed  reconstruction  must  take  a  much  more  solid  and 
substantial  form  than  a  volume  of  Essays  by  different 
authors.  The  most  that  such  a  volume  can  do  is  to  call 
attention  to  the  need  of  such  a  reconstruction,  to  show 
that  the  need  is  felt,  and  to  indicate  some  of  the  lines 
on  which  they  believe  it  ought  to  take  place.  The  authors 
cannot  claim  to  speak  in  the  name  of  any  party  or 
organised  section  of  the  Church  or  of  the  clergy.  But 
they  believe  that  they  represent  tendencies  and  points  of 
view  which  are  far  more  common  among  the  clergy  of 
the  Church  of  England  than  is  commonly  supposed  by 
persons  whose  impressions  about  clerical  opinion  are 
derived  from  current  controversies  whether  in  the  secular 
or  the  religious  press. 

A  few  words  must  be  added  as  to  the  relation  in  which 


PREFACE  vii 

the  Essays  included  in  this  volume  stand  to  each  other. 
The  writers  are  agreed  that,  as  Christians  and  Churchmen 
no  less  than  as  lovers  of  truth,  we  have  cause  to  be 
thankful  for  the  new  light  which  science  and  criticism 
have  within  the  last  half-century  thrown  upon  religious 
problems.  They  are  agreed  that  scientific  and  critical 
methods  ought  to  be  applied  to  such  questions,  and  that 
authority  should  not  be  invoked  to  crush  or  stifle  inquiry. 
They  are  agreed  that,  as  the  result  of  the  rapid  progress 
in  certain  departments  of  human  knowledge,  which  has 
made  the  Victorian  Age  the  most  revolutionary  epoch  (in 
these  matters)  since  the  Reformation,  a  very  considerable 
restatement  and  even  reconstruction  of  parts  of  our 
religious  teaching  is  inevitable ;  and  at  the  same  time  they 
are  agreed  that  "other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than 
that  which  is  laid,  even  Jesus  Christ." 

Beyond  this  they  do  not  profess  to  be  in  close  agree- 
ment. Each  writer  is  responsible  solely  for  his  own 
contributions,  and  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  conceal 
the  differences  which  divide  them  even  on  matters  of 
importance.  Moreover,  they  have  no  desire  that  these 
Essays  should  be  regarded  as  a  party  manifesto.  They 
believe,  indeed,  that  the  only  reason  for  the  current  im- 
pression that  "the  Broad  Church  party  has  disappeared" 
is  the  fact  that  "liberal"  ideas,  which  were  once  charac- 
teristic of  a  very  small  group  of  prominent  men,  have  now 
to  so  large  an  extent  permeated  general  Christian  thought, 
that  they  have  ceased  to  be  party  watchwords,  and  have 
been  found  capable  of  harmonious  combination  with  what 
is  permanently  valuable  in  the  teaching  of  other  Schools. 
Among  the  present  writers  there  are  some  at  least  who 


viii  PREFACE 

would  avow  a  general  sympathy  with  one  or  other  of  the 
great  historic  Church  parties,  and  who  have  no  wish  to 
dissociate  themselves  from  it.  They  believe  that  if  liberal 
theology  is  to  prosper  in  its  work  of  repairing  the  breaches 
in  our  walls,  it  must  be  by  influencing  both  the  Catholic 
and  the  Protestant  elements  in  the  Church — elements 
which  are  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  history  of  the  English 
Church,  and  perhaps  even  in  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  to  be  either  fused  or  superseded. 

Our  aim  throughout  has  been  to  build  up,  not  to  pull 
down,  and  we  are  convinced  that  the  work  of  rebuilding 
is  necessary  and  urgent.  This  conviction  is  based  not 
only  on  the  results  of  our  own  studies,  but  on  personal 
intercourse  with  a  large  number  of  young  men — our  under- 
graduate pupils — who  may  be  taken  to  represent  fairly 
enough  the  educated  class  in  the  rising  generation.  The 
decline  in  the  number  of  candidates  for  Holy  Orders, 
especially  from  our  Universities,  is  widely  deplored.  We 
have  reason  to  believe  that  other  causes,  besides  the 
uncertainty  of  earning  a  living  wage,  are  contributing  to 
this  decline.  And  we  feel  that  in  these  circumstances  a 
great  responsibility  rests  on  all  teachers  of  the  young  who 
lay  on  the  necks  of  the  disciples  any  burden  beyond  "  the 
necessary  things,"  even  though  "their  fathers"  may  have 
been  able  to  bear  it.  And  so,  if  anything  that  we  have 
written  should  give  pain  to  some,  especially  among  our 
elders,  whose  age  and  services  entitle  them  to  our  respect 
and  deference,  we  would  ask  them  to  remember  that  our 
v/ork  here  in  Oxford  obliges  us  to  think  mainly  of  those 
who  are  younger  than  ourselves,  and  to  study  their  needs. 
We  trust,  therefore,  that  we  may  ask   for  a  charitable 


PREFACE  '  IX 

judgment,  even  from  those  who  cannot  give  us  their 
sympathy  and  approval. 

These  Essays  deal  with  the  greatest  of  subjects ;  they 
deal  with  them  briefly,  and  frankly.  It  is  perhaps  difficult 
to  avoid  some  appearance  of  arrogance  in  arguing  to  a 
conclusion  on  such  topics,  and  in  so  small  a  space.  But 
in  truth  we  are  very  conscious  of  the  limitations,  not  only 
of  the  short  essay,  but  of  our  own  powers.  All  we  hope 
to  do  is  to  awaken  interest,  to  suggest  subjects  for  careful 
thought,  or  at  most  to  give  a  wider  currency  to  ideas 
which  are  for  the  most  part  familiar  enough  to  professed 
students  of  philosophy  and  theology. 

We  are  fully  alive  to  the  fragmentary  and  provisional 
character  of  such  suggestions  as  have  been  made  in  the 
present  work,  but  it  is  our  earnest  hope  that  it  may  be 
of  some  use  to  those  who  are  trying  to  combine,  in  their 
own  belief  and  in  their  teaching  as  clergymen  or  otherwise, 
an  openminded  pursuit  of  truth  with  a  heartfelt  loyalty 
to  Christ  and  to  the  fundamental  ideas  of  Christianity, 


CONTENTS 


I.    THE  ULTIMATE  BASIS  OF  THEISM  .        .        i 

By  THE  Rev.  H.  Rashdall,  D.Litt.,  D.C.L.,  Fellow  and 
Tutor  of  New  College,  and  Preacher  at  Lincoln's  Inn. 

II.    THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST    .  .  -        .      59 

By  THE  Rev.  W.  R.  Inge,  M.A.,  Fellow^  Tutor,  and 
Chaplain  of  Hertford  College  ;  formerly  Fellow  of  King's 
College,  Cambridge,  and  Bampton  Lecturer. 

III.  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST  .  .        .     105 

By  THE  Rev.  H.  L.  Wild,  M.A.,  Vice-Principal  of  St. 
Edmund  Hall. 

IV.  THE  PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE 

OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  .        .     167 

By  THE  Rev.  C.  F.  Burney,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in 
Hebrew  of  St.  John's  College. 

V.     MODERN   CRITICISM  AND  THE  NEW 

TESTAMENT       .  ...     206 

By  THE  Rev.  W.  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Chaplain- Fellow,  Sub- 
Rector,  and  Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew  of  Exeter 
College. 

VI.    THE  CHURCH  .  ...     243 

By  THE  Rev.  A.  J.  Carlyle,  M.A.,  Chaplain  and  Lecturer 
in  Theology,  {formerly  Fellow),  of  University  College; 
Rector  of  St.  Martin  and  All  Saints^  Oxford. 

VII.    THE  SACRAMENTS  .  .  .  .  270 

By  THE  Rev.  W.  R.  Inge,  M.A. 


CONTENTIO  VERITATIS 


THE  ULTIMATE  BASTS  OF  THFT^M 


ERRATA 


Page  i6,  line  19.     For  "man"  read  "my  mind." 

19,  headline.      „    "Subjection  and  Objection"  read  "Subjective 
and  Objective." 


(2)  feeling  thought  of  as  possible ;  (3)  relations.  None  of  these 
elements  can  exist  apart  from  mind  ,  ...         7 

Nor  can  things  out  of  the  mind  be  liA^e  things  in  the  mind       .         .       11 

The  impossibility  of  material  things  in  themselves  is  especially  shown 
by  the  subjective  or  ideal  character  of  space,  which  has  no  existence 
apart  from  relations  which  can  only  exist  for  a  mind  apprehending 
them  .  .  .  .  ...       12 

And  this  carries  with  it  {a)  the  admission  that  "  things "  in  space 
only  exist  for  consciousness ;  (d)  the  reality  of  the  self  which 
knows  and  feels.  This  does  not  destroy  the  difference  between 
objective  and  subjective,  fact  and  fancy      .  .  .         .       15 

Things  exist  for  mind,  but  not  for  our  minds  only.  If  geology 
is  not  a  delusion,  the  world  existed  when  there  were  no  human  or 
other  "  finite "  minds  to  know  it.  There  must,  therefore,  have 
been  a  Universal  or  Divine  Mind  for  which  the  world  existed. 
This  .is  the  metaphysical  form  of  the  connnon  belief  that  the  world 
must  have  a  maker      .  ,  .  ...       20 


CONTENTIO  VERITATIS 

I. 

THE  ULTIMATE  BASIS  OF  THEISM 


By  H.   RASHDALL 


Page 


(i)  Introduction, 

The  attitude  of  thoughtful  men  towards  Christianity  is  coming  to 
be  determined  mainly  by  their  attitude  towards  Theism         ,         .         i 

The  great  argument  for  Theism  is  ultimately  metaphysical,  but  meta- 
physic  only  formulates  and  carries  further  the  arguments  which 
appeal  to  common  sense  ,  .  ...         5 

(2)  A  short  statement  of  the  idealistic  argument  for  Theism. 

Things  cannot  be  conceived  of  as  existing  by  themselves.  They 
exist  only  for  mind,  since  the  things  as  known  to  us  are  made  up  of 
(i)  actual  feelings  (or  an  ideal  content  derived  from  actual  feeling); 
(2)  feeling  thought  of  as  possible ;  (3)  relations.  None  of  these 
elements  can  exist  apart  from  mind  .  ...         7 

Nor  can  things  out  of  the  mind  be  like  things  in  the  mind       ,         .       11 

The  impossibility  of  material  things  in  themselves  is  especially  shown 
by  the  subjective  or  ideal  character  of  space,  which  has  no  existence 
apart  from  relations  which  can  only  exist  for  a  mind  apprehending 
them  .  .  .  .  ...       12 

And  this  carries  with  it  (a)  the  admission  that  "  things "  in  space 
only  exist  for  consciousness ;  {Jb)  the  reality  of  the  self  which 
knows  and  feels.  This  does  not  destroy  the  difference  between 
objective  and  subjective,  fact  and  fancy      .  .  .         .       15 

Things  exist  for  mind,  but  not  for  our  minds  only.  If  geology 
is  not  a  delusion,  the  world  existed  when  there  were  no  human  or 
other  "  finite "  minds  to  know  it.  There  must,  therefore,  have 
been  a  Universal  or  Divine  Mind  for  which  the  world  existed. 
Thib  is  the  metaphysical  form  of  the  common  belief  that  the  world 
must  have  a  maker      .  ,  .  ...       20 


I 


2        THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF   THEISM 

Page 
God  must  be  thought  of  as  in  some  sense  a  feeling  as  well  as  a 

thinking  consciousness,  though  both  expressions  are  inadequate  .  23 
This  argument  has  led  us  to  the  idea  of  a  God  for  whom  the  world 

exists,  but  not  of  a  Creator  by  whom  it  is  made        .  .         .       25 

To  establish  a  genuine  Theism  it  requires  to  be  supplemented  by — 

(3)  The  argument  from  Causality. 

The  plain  man  is  right  in  supposing  that  his  sensations  demand  a 
cause  other  than  himself,  but  this  cause  cannot  be  in  space   .         .       26 

The  only  cause  known  to  us  is  our  own  will ;  we  are  immediately 
conscious  of  exercising  Causality  .  .  .         .       27 

The  law  of  Causality  must  be  distinguished  from  the  uniformity  of 
Nature         .  .  .  ,  ...       28 

The  ideal  of  Causality  is  only  satisfied  by  the  union  of  (i)  power  and 
(2)  final  cause  or  end.  A  rational  Will  alone  can  account  for  the 
direction  of  power  towards  an  end  .  .  .         .       29 

Hence  God  must  be  thought  of  as  ivilling  and  not  merely  thinking 
the  Universe  .  .  .  .  ,.31 

'  *    Meaning  of  Personality  in  God      .  ,  ...       32 

(4)  Consideration  of  objections. 

There  is  no  objection  to  admitting  that  in  a  sense  the  world,  being 
the  content  of  God's  thought,  may  be  thought  of  as  included  in 
Him  .  .  .  .  •  •         •       33 

But  other  spirits,  though  deriving  their  being  from  God,  cannot  be 
thought  of  as  parts  of  God         .  .  ...       34 

Hence  God  is  not  infinite  in  the  sense  that  there  is  nothing  which 
He  is  not,  though  He  is  infinite  in  the  sense  of  not  being  limited 
by  anything  which  does  not  derive  its  being  from  Him  .         .       36 

(5)  The  character  of  God. 

Our  belief  in  the  goodness  of  God  is  derived  from  our  own  moral 
consciousness,  and  that  belief  is  necessary  to  account  for  the 
"  objectivity "  of  our  moral  judgments        ,  .  •        •       37 

In  what  sense  God  is  moral  ,  .  ...       42 

The  existence  of  evil  requires  us  to  believe  that  in  a  sense  God's 
Omnipotence  is  limited  .  .  ...       43 

(6)  Relation  of  this  comeption  of  God  to  Christianity. 

Reason  thus  leads  to  a  conception  of  God's  nature  which  is  implied 
by  the  teaching  of  Christ  .  .  ...       46 

That  conception  is  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity      48 

The  idea  of  a  Personal  God  makes  possible  the  idea  of  an  Incarna- 
tion .  .  .  .  ...       49 

The  question  of  miracles.  The  genuine  Theist  cannot  regard  a 
miracle  as  a  priori  inconceivable,  but  the  observed  uniformity  of 
Nature  makes  it  difTicult  to  accept  the  evidence  for  a  "suspen- 
sion"  of  natural  laws  .  .  .  .         .       51 

But  every  act  of  will  is  in  a  sense  an  interference  with  physical  law, 
and  there  may  be  abnormal  degrees  of  such  mental  control  of 
natural  processes  .  .  .  .  •         •       55 


THEISM   AND   CHRISTIANITY  3 

Page 
Some  canons  of  criticism  .  .  .  .         .       56 

Christianity  must  in  the  main  rest  upon  the  appeal  which  Christ 
makes  to  the  moral  consciousness  of  man  .  .  .         .       57 

THEISM  is  not  the  whole  of  Christianity,  but  Theism  i' 
of  the  Christian  type  is  a  very  large  and  important 
part  of  it.  It  is,  I  believe,  more  and  more  coming  to 
be  true  that  men's  attitude  towards  Christianity  is 
determined  mainly  by  their  attitude  towards  Theism. 
That  this  is  so  is  due  partly  to  a  change  in  what  they 
mean  by  Theism,  partly  to  a  change  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  Christianity.  A  Deism  of  the  eighteenth-century  1 
type  might  be,  and  often  was,  entirely  divorced  from 
the  Christian  attitude  towards  God.  Such  a  DeisM 
was  compatible  with  an  almost  entire  extinction  of  the 
religious  emotions,  a  morality  which  found  no  contact 
with  religion  except  in  the  form  of  purely  external 
"  sanctions,"  and  which  sometimes  dispensed  even  with  the 
sanctions  ;  belief  in  a  future  life  disappeared  altogether. 
Its  view  of  the  relation  between  God  and  the  world 
made  worship  an  absurdity,  or  at  least  a  superfluity;  its 
cold  and  critical  temper  was  content  to  regard  the  great 
historical  religions  in  general,  and  Christianity  in  par- 
ticular, as  artificially  invented  impostures,  or  at  least  as 
the  creations  of  an  irrational  "enthusiasm."^  On  the 
other  hand,  while  Christianity  was  regarded  either  as  ^ 
a  supernaturally  authenticated  guarantee  of  "  Natural 
Religion,"  or  as  a  supernaturally  authenticated  appendix 
of  rigid  and  admittedly  unintelligible  dogma,  it  was  clear 
that  the  distinctively  Christian  elements  of  Religion  might 

^  These  remarks  are  meant  to  apply  to  the  type  of  thought  combated  by 
Bishop  Butler  in  the  Analogy.  But  Deism  was  a  word  vaguely  used,  and 
was  often  applied  by  opponents  to  latitudinarian  Churchmen  like  Archbishop 
Tillotson.  To  many  even  of  the  avowed  * '  Deists "  the  above  description 
would  be  quite  inapplicable.  Their  Deism  often  amounted  to  Theism  in  the 
sense  of  this  Essay,  though  their  empirical  Philosophy  led  them  to  exaggerate 
the  separateness  of  God  from  the  universe. 


4        THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

easily  be  sloughed  off  and  leave  the  underlying  Deism 
just  where   it   was   before.      At   the   present  day   minds 
capable  of  religious  feeling  naturally  turn  towards  Christi-^ 
anity,   conceived    as    a    religion   of   enthusiastic    loyaltyj 
towards  the  Person  and  the  ethical  ideal  of  the  historj-J 
cal  Jesus,  with  sympathy  and  yearning.     The  human  side  1 
of  Christianity  is  readily  accepted.     To  many  minds  it  is 
just  the  view  of  the   nature  of  God  which   Christianity 
presupposes   that  creates  intellectual  difficulties.      But  a; 
Theism  of  the  Christian  type  once  accepted,  the  way  is 
prepared  for  the  ascription  of  a  unique  position  in  the 
religious  history  of  the  world  to  Him  who  was  at  once 
the  first  great  teacher  of  that  Theism,  and  the  supreme 
embodiment   of  the  ethical  ideal  which  has  historically 
been  associated  with  it.     I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there 
remain  no  difficulties  and  perplexities  either  in  the  tra- 
ditional dogmas  about  the  Person  of  Christ  or  about  the 
miraculous  element  in  the  narratives  of  his  life.     I  do  not"^ 
mean  to  say  that  there   does  not  remain  an   important 
difference  between  a  Unitarianism  or  Christian  Theism  of 
the  modern  type  and  a  Catholicism  or  Trinitarian  ism  of 
the  kind   which  seeks   to  place   itself   in   harmony   with 
modern   modes   of  thought.     But   I   do   believe  that  the 
difference  between  what  one  may  vaguely  call  an  inside 
attitude  and  an  outside  attitude  (whether  sympathetic  or 
unsympathetic)  towards   the    Christian    Faith   is   coming 
more  and  more  to  depend  upon  the  view  that  is  taken  of 
Theism.      Especially  is  this  the  case  with  minds  which  ' 
have  passed    through   the  discipline  of  Philosophy,  and 
with  whom  (for  the  most  part)  the  alternative  to  Christian 
Theism  is  not  a  blank  Materialism,  or  a  confident  Agnosti-I 
cism,  but  a  Theism  of  a  vague,  impersonal  type,  exhibiting! 
every  shade  of  thought  and  feeling  intermediate  between! 
a  very  real  belief  that  the  ultimate  principle  of  things  is 
spiritual  and  a  Pantheism  which  for  every  religious  and 


METAPHYSICS   AND   COMMONSENSE        5 

ethical    purpose     is    indistinguishable    from    the    purest 
Naturalism. 

I  propose  in  the  following  pages  to  try,  in  a  systematic 
but  necessarily  very  brief  and  imperfect  manner,  to  suggest 
what  is  implied  in  the  Theism  presupposed  by  Christianity  ; 
and  this  may  best  be  done  by  indicating  the  grounds  on 
which,  as  I  believe,  such  a  Theism  rests.  And  here  we 
are  at  once  met  by  a  difficulty.  The  strongest  argument 
for  Theism  is,  in  its  fully  developed  form,  a  metaphysical/ 
argument.  To  some  minds  this  will  be  thought  to  amount 
to  an  admission  that  such  a  Theism  can  never  be  the 
religion  of  the  modern  world.  How,  it  may  be  said,  is 
Christianity  to  be  accepted  by  the  world  in  general,  if 
it  is  impossible  to  be  a  Christian  on  any  rational  grounds  , 
without  first  being  a  metaphysician?  Does  not  this  in- 
volve, as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  Christianity  must 
be  possible  only  on  the  one  hand  for  a  small  circle  of 
professed  metaphysical  students,  and  on  the  other  for 
those  who  are  content  to  accept  their  religion  on  authority? 
We  need  not  shrink  from  the  admission  that  for  largeN 
numbers  of  people  almost  wholly,  and  for  nearly  all  to  some 
extent,  religious  belief  must  rest  upon  authority,  though  it] 
will  never  rest  entirely  upon  authority.  P'or  people  will 
not  accept  upon  authority  what  does  not  meet  the  needs 
of  their  own  moral  and  rational  nature ;  and  the  fact  that 
a  creed  does  meet  their  needs  is,  as  far  as  it  goes,  an 
argument.  And  it  were  much  to  be  desired  that  some 
metaphysical  training  should  be  diffused  among  a  much 
larger  number  of  people  than  now  enjoy  it,  especially 
among  those  who  are  concerned  with  the  teaching  of  Re- 
ligion in  a  sceptical  age.  A  certain  elementary  course  of 
metaphysical  reading  might  well  be  recommended  to  all 
well-educated  people  who  feel  the  need  of  getting  at  the  real 
grounds  upon  which  religious  belief  must  rest,  and  might 
be  still  more  widely  recommended  had  our  philosophers 


6        THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS   OF  THEISM 

learnt  how  to   imitate   the   lucidity  of  the   old    English 
philosophical  Classics  without  reproducing  their  metaphy- 
sical mistakes.     But  the  main  reply  to  the  objection  above 
indicated  is  that  there  is  no  absolute  line  of  demarcation 
between  the  kind  of  arguments  upon  which  theistic  belief  | 
is  based  in  thoughtful  men  who  have  never  studied  formal  '• 
metaphysics  and   the  arguments  of  the  professed  meta-  ; 
physician.     All  men  who  think  about  things  in  general/ 
are  metaphysicians  more  or  less.     The  plain  man  who  has 
never  opened  a  book  of  geometry,  or  even  of  arithmetic, 
has  nevertheless  some  ideas  about  space  and  quantity  or 
number,  and  those  ideas  are  mathematical  ideas.     And  so, 
the   metaphysician   is    simply  the   man   who   thinks   ouf''; 
the  problems  about  which  all  who  think  about  things  in ' 
general  have  thought  to  some  extent,  who  thinks  them 
out   in   a   more   thorough   and    systematic  manner  than 
other  people,  and  who  has  acquainted  himself  with  the 
best  that  has  been  thought  and  written  about  such  subjects 
by  others. 

I  believe  therefore  that  I  shall  best  serve  my  purpose  by 
not  shrinking  from  the  attempt  to  express,  in  the  most 
popular  and  untechnical  way  that  is  possible,  what  I  believe 
the  Theistic  argument  comes  to  when  it  is  fully  thought 
out.  It  must  be  admitted  that  to  acquire  the  metaphysicalj 
attitude  of  mind,  to  see  clearly  what  the  ultimate  meta- 
physical question  means,  and  fully  to  grasp  any  possible 
answer  to  it,  generally  requires  a  rather  long  course  of 
gradual  habituation.  But  I  trust  that  some  who  may  not 
be  prepared  to  accept  the  particular  line  of  argument 
which  will  be  here  offered  in  its  full  extent,  may  never- 
theless be  able  to  accept  it  sufficiently  to  acquiesce  in  the 
religious  or  theological  part  of  my  conclusion.  If  that 
should  be  so,  it  will  not  mean  that  they  have  substituted 
some  false  or  merely  plausible  grounds  of  belief  for  the 
true  ones,  or  allowed  their  creed  to  be  dictated  by  authority 


THE    IDEALISTIC   ARGUMENT  7 

or  emotion  or  prejudice.  For,  as  has  been  suggested, 
the  common-sense  arguments  for  theistic  belief  are,  as 
I  believe,  only  the  metaphysical  arguments  imperfectly 
thought  out.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  such  a  statement 
of  my  argument  as  is  possible  within  the  limits  of  this 
book  will  fail  to  satisfy  the  professed  metaphysician.  It  is 
not  so  much,  however,  in  the  statement  of  an  argument  as 
in  the  reply  to  objections  that  it  is  difficult  to  combine 
metaphysical  thoroughness  and  accuracy  with  general  in- 
telligibility. I  must  therefore  appeal  to  the  benevolence 
of  the  metaphysical  reader  (if  such  there  should  be),  and 
ask  him  to  believe  that  I  am  not  unaware  of  the  existence 
of  many  possible  objections  which  I  am  obliged  to  pass 
over,  and  that  I  have  no  desire  to  slur  over  or  minimise 
them. 

I  may  add  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  argument  which 
pretends  to  be  in  any  way  new.  The  greater  part  of  it  is 
simply  the  common  property  of  all  thorough-going  Ideal- 
ists. If  in  some  parts  of  the  argument  I  adopt  a  position 
which  will  not  commend  itself  to  all  genuinely  theistic 
Idealists,  I  venture  to  hope  that  my  differences  from  them 
will  be  for  the  most  part  a  difference  of  emphasis  rather 
than  a  fundamental  difference  of  principle.  It  will  be 
unnecessary  to  specify  my  obligations  to  the  acknowledged 
masters  to  whose  inspiration  is  due  anything  in  these  pages 
that  merits  attention. 

To  the  "  plain  man  "  it  usually  appears  self-evident  that 
matter  is   a  thing  which  exists  "in   itself,"  which  could 
conceivably  be  supposed  to  exist  even  if  no  consciousness! 
existed  or  ever  had  existed  in  the  world.    He  may,  indeed, 
if  he  is  a   Theist,  disbelieve  that  matter  does   exist   or  , 
ever  has,  as  a  matter  of  actual  fact,  existed  without  mind  ir 
he  may  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  is  unthinkable  that 
matter  should  in  the  first  instance  have  come  into  exist- 
ence without  mind,  or  that  the   Mind  which  brought  it 


8        THE  ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

into  existence  should  cease  to  exist;  but,  if  all  mind  in 
the  Universe  could  be  supposed  to  be  suddenly  ex- 
tinguished, there  would  appear  to  him  nothing  essentially- 
absurd  or  self-contradictory  in  the  idea  that  matter  would 
go  on  existing  all  the  same.  That  is  the  notion  which 
lies  at  the  root  of  all  difficulties  about  Theism.  Thei 
denial  of  this  view  of  things  is  what  is  meant  by  Idealism  : 
and  Idealism  is,  as  I  believe,  the  necessary  basis  of  Theism 
for  minds  which  want  to  get  to  the  bottom  of  things. 

The  line  of  thought  which  leads  to  the  adoption  of  this 
view  may  best  be  mastered  by  a  perusal  of  Bishop 
Berkeley's  Principles  of  Human  Knowledge,  However  v 
much  Bishop  Berkeley's  argument  requires  to  be  corrected 
by  the  criticism  of  that  later  form  of  Idealism  which  begins 
with  Kant,  his  writings  remain  the  classical  expression  of 
the  view  which  all  genuine  Idealists  agree  in  accepting 
as  the  basis  of  a  true  theory  of  the  Universe — the  view' 
that  "matter"  or  "things"  exist  only  in  mind  or  "for"^ 
mind,  that  the  idea  of  matter  without  mind  is  an  un-\ 
thinkable  absurdity.  I  will  here  attempt  only  a  very  brief 
resume  of  Bishop  Berkeley's  line  of  thought,  advising  the 
reader  not  previously  acquainted  with  metaphysics  to 
read  Berkeley  for  himself,  if  he  wishes  to  understand  it 
thoroughly,  and  to  meet  with  a  fuller  answer  to  the 
objections  which  will  inevitably  occur  to  him.^ 

The  plain  man  (and  the  most  accomplished  non-i 
metaphysical  man  of  science  will  probably  for  the  present! 
purpose  be  only  too  eager  to  place  himself  on  the  side  of 
the  plain  man)  declares  to  us  that  matter  exists  "  in  itself," 
and  that  it  is  "in  itself"  exactly  what  he  thinks  it  to  be.: 
He  sees  before  him  a  tree,  and  he  tells  us  that  the  tree 
is  just  what  it  appears  to  him  to  be.     Very  well,  the  tree' 

^  A  more  mature  statement  of  his  view  is  contained  in  the  Dialogties  of 
ffyloiis  and  Philonotis.  To  the  reader  who  wishes  to  appreciate  the  advance 
which  modern  Idealism  has  made  upon  Berkeley  without  grappling  with  the 
difficulties  of  Kant,  Ferrier's  Institutes  of  Metaphysic  may  be  commended. 


MATTER   AND    ITS   QUALITIES  9 

appears  to  him  green.      "Is   the   tree   green   in  itself?" 
"Yes,"  says  the  first  thought  of  the  plain  man,  "of  course 
the  tree  is  really  green  in  itself."     "Then  supposing  no 
being  endowed  with  an  eye  had  ever  existed  in  the  world, 
supposing  no  spiritual  being  had  ever  felt  or  seen  what ) 
we  feel   and   see  when  we   look  upon  a  wood   in  early  " 
summer,  the  tree  would  still  be  green?"     Here  probably 
our  plain  friend  will  begin  to  hesitate ;  but,  if  he  has  a 
tincture  of  science,  he  will  probably  murmur  something 
about  rays  of  light  or  waves  of  ether,  some  of  which  are 
absorbed  by  the  tree  and  others  thrown  back  into  space — 
rays  which  are  there  all  the  same  whether  they  actually 
strike  a  living  optic  nerve  or  not.     And  then  we  shall' 
have  to  point  out  that  waves  of  ether  are  one  thing ;  the 
idea  of  "green"   is   something   quite  different.     A   man 
blind  from  his  birth  may  know  all  about  waves  and  ether 
and  optic  nerves ;  he  may  pass  a  brilliant  examination  in 
the  science  of  optics,  but  he  has  no  idea  of  what  the  seeing 
man  means  by  a  sensation  of  green.     And  then  probably 
our  plain  man  will  be  ready  to  confess  that  the  colour 
and  the  sound  and  the  smell  of  external  objects  do  not 
(in   strictness    of   speech)   exist    in    the    bodies,  but   are 
effects  produced  by  the  bodies  upon  mind ;  the  ideas  of 
"secondary  qualities"  (as  Locke  called  them)  exist  only 
in  the  mind,  but  the  "  primary  qualities " — the  size,  the  j 
shape,  the  solidity  of  things  —  these,  he  will  still  insist, ' 
are   in   the   things  ;    and    the   "  secondary  qualities "   are  1 
really  certain  modifications  of  the  primary  qualities  {i.e.  of  * 
the  arrangement  of  the  ultimate  particles  of  matter)  which 
produce  the  ideas  of  colour,  sound,  etc.,  in  my  mind.     The  I 
primary  qualities  are  in  the  things :  but  how  do  I  know  \ 
they  are  there?     When  1  say  that  the  paper  before  me 
is  square,  all  that  I  can  really  mean  is  that  the  white 
appearance  in  my  mind  is  of  this  shape,  and  that  if  I 
touch   it   I    shall    likewise    find    my   tactual    impressions 


TO      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

arranged  in  a  certain  way.     When  I  say  that  it  is  thin, 
I  can  mean  only  that  on  holding  it  up  edgeways  the  edge 
is  seen  or  felt  to  be  thin.     When  I  say  it  is  solid,  I  mean  I 
that  I  cannot  see  or  touch  the  table  underneath  it  without/ 
removing  it  or  making  a  hole  in  it.     "Then  do  you  mean," 
it  may  be  objected,  "  that  the  paper  has  no  existence  when 
I  leave  the  room?"     Certainly  not,  for  in  the  first  place 
I  can  still  think  of  it,  and  by  being  thought  of  by  me,  it 
has  (Berkeley  would  say)  "  entered  my  mind  and  becomeN 
an  idea";^  and  when  I  so  think  it,  I  can  only  think  of  it  as] 
something  which  I  should  see  and  feel  under  certain  con- ; 
ditions — if  I  came  back  into  the  room  and  no  one  had  re- 1 
moved  it.     But  it  would  certainly  be  meaningless  to  say 
that  it  exists  if  nobody  ever  had  or  ever  would  either  see 
or  think  of  it  as  being  seen.     This  line  of  thought  may 
possibly  bring  our  plain  man  to  the  admission  that  what 
we    experience    immediately   is    simply   certain    feelings, 
which,  when  being  reflected  on,  are  built  up  into  objects  •■ 
of  thought ;  that,  do  what  we  will,  we  cannot  get  outside . 
our   thoughts ;    by   inference   we    may,   indeed,   come   to 
believe  that  other  people  also  have  similar  feelings  and 
know  similar  objects :  nay,  when  we  make  abstraction  of 
the   thinker  and   concentrate  our  attention  only  on   the 
thing  thought  of— the  matter  or  "content"  of  the  thought, 
as  it  is  called — we  may  very  probably  assert  that  when 
you  and  I  both  think  of  this  sheet  of  paper,  or  of  paper 
in  general,  we  are  thinking  about  t/ie  same  thing.     But 
still  the  "thing"  can  only  mean  what  we  think  of,  what 
we  should  experience  under  certain  conditions,  or  what 
somebody  else  might  think  of  or  experience  under  certain 
circumstances. 

*  It  is  true  that  Berkeley  did  not  sufficiently  distinguish  this  existence  for 
thought,  which  it  has  equally  whether  I  am  looking  at  it  or  merely  thinking 
it,  from  the  actual  perception  of  it  when  it  is  present,  and  prepared  the  way 
for  Hume's  attempt  to  reduce  the  memory  of  a  sensation  to  a  "less  lively" 
idea  or  feeling  of  the  same  kind. 


THINGS   ARE   FOR   MIND  ii 

Our  plain  man  will  now  perhaps  be  disposed  to  admit «; 
that   immediately  we  are  in    contact  only  with  ideas,  or  s 
rather,  as  Berkeley's  critics  rightly  insist,  with  "  objects  of 
thought " ;  but  he  will  go  on  to  evade  the  force  of  the 
admission  by  contending  that,  though  primary  qualities,  no  ' 
less  than  secondary,  are  found  on  reflection  to  be  known 
by   us   simply   as  objects  of  our  thought,  as  something 
inside  our  minds,  yet  the  things  as  they  are  in  themselves 
are  really  like  the  things  that  we  know,  that  the  primary  i 
qualities   as   they  present  themselves    to    my    mind    are' 
really  like  the  secondary  qualities  as  they  would  still  be  , 
in   the    things   were   there   no   thought   or  consciousness/ 
whatever  in  the  world.     To  this   we   may  reply  in  the 
words    of  Berkeley :    "  But,   say    you,   though   the   ideas 
themselves    do   not    exist   without    the    mind,   yet   there 
may   be   things   like   them,  whereof  they  are   copies   or 
resemblances,  which  things  exist  without  the  mind  in  an 
unthinking   substance.      I    answer,   an    idea   can   be   like  I 
nothing   but    an   idea ;    a   colour   or   figure   can   be    like 
nothing  but   another  colour   or  figure.      If  we   look  but 
never  so  little  into  our  own  thoughts,  we  shall  find  it  im- 
possible for  us  to  conceive  a  likeness  except  only  between 
our  ideas.     Again,  I  ask  whether  those  supposed  originals 
or  external  things,  of  which  our  ideas  are  the  pictures  or 
representations,  be  themselves  perceivable  or  no  ?     If  they 
are,  then  they  are  ideas,  and  we  have  gained  our  point; 
but  if  you  think  they  are  not,  I  appeal  to  anyone  whether 
it  be  sense  to  assert  a  colour  is  like  something  which  is 
invisible ;  hard  or  soft,  like  something  which  is  intangible ; 
and  so  of  the  rest."  ^ 

Another  way  of  illustrating  the  essentially  unmeaning 

character  of  saying  that  things  apart  from  thought  are 

"in  themselves"  what  they  are  to  the  thinking  mind,  is 

to  call  attention  to  the  essentially  relative  character  of 

^  Berkeley,  Principles  of  Human  Knowledge^  §.  8. 


12      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

these  primary  qualities  which  we  are  so  apt  to  think 
of  as  existing  in  the  supposed  "things  in  themselves," 
of  which  we  can  give  no  account  except  that  they  are 
not  the  same  things  as  those  we  think.  The  quality  which 
is  most  apt  to  force  itself  upon  us  as  something  which 
belongs  to  the  things  and  not  to  our  thought  of  them 
is  the  quality  of  solidity ;  and,  whatever  else  solidity  may 
mean,  I  suppose  everyone  will  admit  that  the  property 
of  occupying  space  is  an  essential  element  in  it.  Without 
pressing  the  question  what  exactly  can  be  meant  by 
"occupying,"  it  is  enough  to  take  the  bare  idea  of 
spaciality.  "Things  in  themselves"  are,  it  is  contended, 
in  space,  and  would  be  still  in  space  though  thought, 
were  to  perish  out  of  the  universe.  What,  then,  we  must ; 
insist,  is  meant  by  the  "spaciality,"  the  size,  the  shape,) 
etc.,  of  the  things  which  occupy  space?  Whatever  a  thing 
is  in  itself,  it  would  still  be  that  thing,  one  must 
suppose,  whatever  became  of  other  things.  Therefore 
my  paper  would  still  be  square,  though  all  other  things 
in  the  world  were  to  be  annihilated,  and  the  space  in 
which  these  things  were.  Yet  what  would  this  mean? 
What  would  be  the  meaning  of  a  square  foot  of  space 
apart  from  the  relation  of  that  square  foot  to  the  sur- 
rounding space?  Or  what  would  the  size  of  my  paper 
mean  if  there  were  no  things  and  no  space  outside  it? 
Or  (to  confine  ourselves  to  the  "  thing  "  itself),  the  square- 
ness of  the  thing  belongs  to  the  thing  itself,  it  will  be 
urged,  not  to  its  relation  to  other  things.  But  then  this 
"thing"  to  which  I  attribute  the  property  of  occupying 
space  is  made  up  of  parts,  and  apart  from  the  relation 
of  these  parts  to  each  other,  what  would  be  the  meaning 
of  its  being  six  inches  square  ?  "  Yes,"  it  may  be  replied, 
"it  is  true  that  a  composite  whole  like  a  piece  of  paper 
is  made  up  of  parts  ;  such  a  thing  is  no  doubt  made  what 
it   is   by  the   relations   between   its   parts,  but   it   is  the 


THINGS   AND   RELATIONS  13 

parts  that  really  exist  in  themselves."  "  How  small  a 
part?"  I  ask.  And  then,  if  the  objector  knows  something 
of  chemistry,  he  will  perhaps  tell  us  that  the  atom  of  some 
chemical  element  is  the  real  "thing  in  itself,"  or  some) 
smaller  particle,  which  (according  to  speculative  modern 
chemistry)  goes  to  the  making  of  the  chemical  element. 
That  would  still  be  what  it  is  apart  from  all  relation  to 
other  things.  And  the  atom  occupies  space?  "Certainly." 
Well,  then,  if  it  occupies  space,  it  must  have  a  top  and 
a  bottom,  a  right  and  a  left.  Still  the  being  of  the  space- «. 
occupying  atom  is  found  to  be  made  up  of  relations.  We  \ 
never  get  rid  of  the  essential  relativity  of  this  "  solidity," 
which  of  all  its  qualities  most  decidedly  seems  to  belong 
to  the  thing  itself.  Everywhere  we  encounter  nothing 
but  relations,  until  we  get  down  to  the  point  without 
parts  and  without  magnitude,  and  that  surely  is  not  a 
something  which  can  be  conceived  of  as  existing  apart 
from  its  relations  to  other  points,  nor  can  that  which 
has  no  magnitude  be  regarded  as  a  "  thing."  The 
very  quality  then  which  is  most  especially  supposed  to 
belong  to  the  individual  thing  as  it  is  in  itself  turns  out 
to  be  infected  through  and  through  with  relativity;  this 
property  at  least  seems  to  belong  not  to  the  thing,  but^ 
to  be  made  up  of  relations  between  things.  And  is  a^ 
relation  anything  apart  from  the  mind  which  conceives  J 
the  relation,  which  holds  together  the  two  related  terms 
and  apprehends  the  relation  between  them?  If  not,  and 
if  space  be  made  up  of  relations,  then  space  must  be 
"subjective"  in  the  sense  of  being  made  by  mind,  of 
having  existence  only  relatively  to  the  apprehending 
subject  or  mind.  And  the  subjectivity  of  space  carries 
with  it  the  subjectivity  of  everything  in  space. 

"  Yes,  but  you  can't  have  relations  apart  from  some- , 
thing  to  relate ;  the  relation  of  the  things  may  only  exist  j ' 
for  the  mind  that  puts  them   together,  but   there   must 


14      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

be  something  there  to  be  related."  Not  "there,"  I  must 
reply,  for  we  have  admitted  that  the  thereness  of  the 
thing  was  part  of  its  relatedness — meaningless  apart  from 
its  relation  to  other  things  or  points  in  space.  What  is 
the  solidity  of  a  thing  apart  from  the  relation  between 
its  parts  and  its  relations  to  other  things?  "Well,"  it 
may  be  replied,  "  it  resists  you  when  you  press  it ;  it  is 
something  that  you  can  touch,  that  hurts  you  when  you 
stumble  upon  it,  and  so  on."  Yes,  but  here  we  are  back 
again  at  feelings  which  it  was  admitted  could  not  be  apart 
from  some  subject  which  feels. 

Feelings  and  relations^  are  all  that  we  can  find  in 
things,  however  long  we  think  about  them.  We  may 
no  doubt  think  about  a  thing  which  we  have  never 
touched  or  seen,  or  had  any  kind  of  sensible  experience 
of,  but  that  merely  means  that  we  know  what  it  would 
be  found  to  be  like  if  we  or  some  other  mind  were  to 
come  into  such  contact  with  it.  Berkeley  was  no  doubt 
wrong  in  failing  to  distinguish  adequately  between  an 
"idea"  in  the  sense  of  the  present  image  or  sensation 
and  an  "  idea "  in  the  sense  of  some  quality  which  can 
be  thought  of  when  the  feeling  is  gone ;  but  then  after 
all  the  quality  we  think  of  is  only  a  thought  of  what 
the  feeling  would  be  like  if  we  did  experience  it.^  If 
nobody  ever  did  experience  or  ever  could  experience  any 

1  I  fully  recognise  that  pure  feeling,  feeling  without  relation,  is  a  mere 
abstraction,  as  much  so  as  relation  without  something  to  relate. 

2  It  is  perfectly  true  that  our  thought  of  a  quality  is  an  abstract  universal 
which  is  never  actually  the  same  as,  and  never /^r/'^c//)/ reproduces  what  I  or 
anyone  else  has  ever  experienced  in  actual  present  perception,  but  still  it  is  an 
attempt  to  reproduce  it.  What  we  experience  is  never  merely  blue  in  general, 
but  the  judgment  that  the  thing  has  such  and  such  a  quality  is  only  true 
because  and  in  so  far  as  the  thing  actually  produces  the  feeling  which  we 
struggle  to  reproduce  in  thought.  The  metaphysicians  who  have  insisted 
on  this  point  with  most  penetration  never  seem  adequately  to  grapple  with  the 
question,  "  What  is  there  really  in  common  between  the  actual  perception 
and  the  universal  idealised  content "  ? — what  in  short  a  ' '  content "  really  is. 

» But  such  questions  need  not  be  answered  for  our  present  purpose. 


THE   REALITY   OF   MIND  15 

one  particular  sensation  which  is  called  green,  the  judg- 
ment "  trees  are  green "  would  be  false  or  meaningless. 
Feelings  actual  or  possible — feelings  actually  experienced 
or  idealised  by  thought,  and  relations  between  such  actual 
or  idealised  feelings — besides  these  there  is  nothing  in 
"things."  If  anyone  still  insists  that  this  is  not  all,  let 
him  tell  us  what  more  he  wants  in  his  "things."  If 
he  cannot  tell  us  of  any  property  that  belongs  to  the 
things  whose  self-existence  he  so  passionately  asserts, 
the  assertion  must  surely  be  meaningless.  If  it  means 
anything  to  him,  he  can  surely  tell  us  what  it  is  :  and 
when  he  tells  us  something  about  things  that  cannot  be 
easily  shown  to  be  either  a  feeling  or  a  quality  meaning- 
less apart  from  what  is  actually  felt,  or  a  relation,  his 
assertion  will  have  a  meaning  and  may  be  discussed. 
Till  then,  we  shall  assume  that  everything  we  know, 
everything  we  can  intelligibly  assert  to  exist  must  be 
either  a  feeling  or  feelable  quality  or  a  relation  or  some 
combination  of  the  two.  Feelings  cannot  exist  apartV 
from  a  feeling  consciousness,  relations  can  only  exist  for  1 1 
a  relating  intelligence.  The  "esse"  of  things  \s  for  mind.':  \ 
But  of  course  the  things  thought  or  felt  cannot  exist  apart ' 
from  the  mind  which  thinks  and  feels.  I  cannot  stay 
to  dwell  upon  either  the  really  difficult  problems,  or  the 
fanciful  and  over-subtle  ones,  which  may  be  raised  as 
to  the  "  reality  "  of  the  mind  or  self.  It  will  be  enough  to 
assume  that  in  a  sense  sufficient  for  every  purpose  of  the 
following  argument,  those  who  have  accepted  the  conten- 
tion that  there  are  no  things  apart  from  mind  will  be 
prepared  to  admit  the  existence  of  the  mind  itself  We 
must  not,  of  course,  take  the  mind  out  of  all  relation  to  the 
objects  of  its  thought.  It  may  reasonably  enough  be 
contended  that  mind  apart  from  thing,  "subject"  apart 
from  "object,"  is  as  unintelligible  as  matter  or  thing 
apart  from  mind.     But  when  we  are  clear  that  by  "object"  j 


i6      THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS   OF  THEISM 

or  "  thing "  we  only  mean   that  which  the   mind   thinks*^ 
or  feels,  and  that  no  independence  or  self-existence  can  \ 
be  attributed  to  the  thing,  the  distinction  between  "mind"/ 
and   "thing"   becomes   merely   a  distinction   within   the 
mind.      The   mind    undoubtedly   does    distinguish    itself 
from  the  things  which  it  thinks,  but  that  does  not  show 
that  the  things  which  it  thinks  have  any  existence  apart 
from  the  thought  which  thinks  them  or  from  some  other 
spirit's  thought.     I  am  not  my  toothache,  and  yet  nobody 
thinks  that  my  toothache  has  any  existence  apart  from 
me.     "  The  mind" — the  subject,  to  speak  in  more  technical 
language — has  no  existence  apart   from   some  object  or 
other,  but  that  object  may  be  in  ultimate  analysis  simply  j 
a  state  or  experience  of  the  subject  or  of  some  other/; 
subject. 

And  this  last  point  brings  me  to  an  objection  which  will 
probably  be  occurring  to  the  reader.  "Do  you  really 
mean,"  I  may  be  asked, "  that  the  world  is  as  much  merely 
a  state  offfis«^as  my  toothache  ?  Are  you  not  breaking 
down  all  distinction  between  subjective  and  objective, 
between  fancy  and  fact,  between  reality  and  delusion?" 
A  complete  and  adequate  answer  to  this  question  would 
involve  a  system  of  Philosophy,  and  as  a  basis  for  it  a 
system  of  Logic.  But  within  the  limits  now  at  my  disposal 
an  answer  may  be  suggested  under  three  heads. 

{a)  There  is  always  a  difference  between  the  idea  in  my  7 
head  and  an  objective  fact.     Even  when  I  confine  myself  J. 
to  my  own  sensations,  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
sensation  considered  simply  as   such  and  the  judgment 
that  I  have  a  sensation.     The  feeling — the  toothache,  it 
may   be — is   purely  mine,  and    nobody  else's.     It  exists 
only  while  it  is  felt ;  it  did  not  exist  yesterday,  and  will 
not  exist  to-morrow.     But  the  judgment  that  I  have  a 
toothache  is  a  statement  of  objective  truth.     That  is  true ' 
for  me,  and   it   is  true   for  all  the  world.     Anyone  who. 


FACT   AND   FANCY  17 

though  he  feels  nothing  of  my  toothache,  judges  or  thinks 
that  I  have  not  got  a  toothache  is  in  error.     No  wishes, 
no  thinking  away  of  that  toothache  on  my  part  or  anyone 
else's  part  will  cause  it  to  be  any  the  less  a  fact ;  it  is  part 
of  the  truth  about  things ;  anyone  who  does  not   know 
that  that  toothache  has  been  felt  does  not  know  all  that 
there  is  to  know.     And   the  fact   that  I   should   have  a 
toothache  to-day  always  was   true,  and   the  fact   that   I  I 
have  had  toothache  will  always  remain  true,  long  after  my  i 
aches  have  ceased  and  my  tooth  has  mingled  with  the  j 
dust.     My  toothache,  in  short,  is  subjective ;  the  fact  that  j 
I  have  a  toothache  is  objective.     There  would  still  be  a  j 
difference  between  subjective  and  objective,  though  I  were  j 
the  only  consciousness  in  the  universe.     My  perceptions ! 
as  such  are  subjective,  but  the  fact  that  I  have  them,  and  | 
the  laws  which   determine  the  conditions  under  which  Ij 
shall  have  such  and  such  a  perception  are  objective.  / 

{b)  On  the  basis  of  this  distinction  it  becomes  plain 
that,  even  supposing  I  were  the  only  consciousness  in  the 
universe,  there  would  still  be  a  distinction  between  fact 
and  fancy,  between  an  idea  in  my  head  and  an  objective 
fact.  I  may  have  an  idea  that  I  shall  have  no  toothache, 
but  that  idea — if  by  idea  is  meant  a  piece  of  knowledge 
as  knowledge — is  false,  as  I  discover  to  my  cost  when 
to-morrow  comes,  and  with  it  the  toothache.  Of  course, 
considered  as  an  "idea  in  my  head,"  as  a  piece  of  ex- 
perience, as  a  "psychological  event,"  that  idea  of  mine 
has  a  reality  of  its  own,  but  it  is  not  the  same  reality 
as  the  toothache.  What  I  judge  is  false;  the  fact  that 
I  judge  is  as  much  a  fact  as  toothache.  My  delusions  and  \ 
my  toothache  are  both  of  them  realities  in  their  way,  but ! 
they  are  different  realities.  Hence,  even  supposing  there 
were  no  other  consciousness  in  the  universe  than  his  own, 
there  would  be  a  very  real  and  important  distinction 
between  the  snakes  that  a  man  merely  imagines  in  a  fit  of 
C 


i8      THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS   OF   THEISM 

delirium  tremens  and  an  unguis  in  herba.  The  snakes 
that  people  his  disordered  imagination  do  not  bite ;  the 
snakes  that  waylay  his  path  in  Africa  do.  The  chimsera 
has  an  existence  of  its  own  in  the  world  of  art  and 
literature  and  primitive  imagination ;  and  that  world  is 
a  part  of  the  whole  world  of  reality,  but  it  has  a  very 
different  place  from  that  occupied  by  lions  and  tigers.^ 

{c)  So  far  I  have  assumed  my  consciousness  to  be  the  , 
only  one  in  the  universe.  I  will  not  now  go  into  the/ 
question  of  the  intellectual  process  by  which  we  come  to 
believe  that  there  are  other  minds  than  ours  in  the  world. 
I  assume  that  in  some  way  we  have  become  aware  of  that 
fact.  And  when  we  are  aware  of  that  fact,  the  most 
simple  and  obvious  distinction  between  fact  and  fancy, 
imagination  and  reality,  between  subjective  and  objective, 
comes  to  this :  we  call  "  subjective "  that  which  I  only 
perceive,  "  objective  "  that  which  (under  certain  conditions) 
others  will  perceive  also.  Thought  always  deals  {i.e.  true 
thought  does  deal,  and  all  thought  purports  to  deal)  with 
objective  truths ;  but  then,  it  is  all-important  to  remember, 
truths  are  not  realities.  They  would  not  be  true  unless 
somebody  at  some  time  or  other  actually  experienced  or 
felt  something.  Thus  in  its  way  my  toothache  is  an 
objective  fact.  But  we  call  it  subjective  because  it  is  only 
I  that  feel  it.  Equally  so  with  the  snake  seen  in  delirium 
tremens ;  that  snake  is  a  very  formidable  reality  to  the 
delirious  person.  But  he  is  in  error  only  when  he  supposes  > 
that  his  snake  has  an  "  objective  reality,"  when  he  thinks  \ 
that  other  people  see  what  he  sees,  or  when  he  supposes 
that  what  can  be  seen  by  him  can  also  be  touched  or  eaten 
by  himself  or  others. 

(d)  One  more  point  may  be  necessary,  and  this  must  be 
merely  glanced  at,  though  in  a  metaphysical  treatise  it 

1  Of  course  I  here  treat  snakes  and  lions  simply  as  objects  of  experience, 
apart  altogether  from  their  consciousness. 


SUBJECTI(|fg^  AND   OBJECTl4fg^  19 

would  occupy  much  ground.  The  common  distinction 
between  subjective  and  objective,  between  my  private 
experience  and  the  world  of  things,  turns  partly  upon  the 
fact  that  the  world  of  things  occupies  space ;  my  sub- 
jective experiences  do  not.  No  doubt  my  physical  pains 
are  localised — probably  even  the  most  spiritual  of  my 
emotions;  but  they  are  not  "things,"  partly  because  the 
experience  which  I  have  at  that  point  of  space  is  one 
which  others  cannot  have  there,  partly  because  the  feeling 
is  not  the  feeling  of  touch  and  of  resisted  pressure  which 
is  implied  by  the  true  object  or  thing.  And,  though 
the  presence  of  an  object  in  space  means  ultimately  that 
I  and  others  do  and  will  continue  to  have  experiences  of 
touch  at  a  certain  point  of  space,  the  notion  of  space  itself 
is  not  a  feeling.  Space  is  the  creation  of  thought ;  the 
idea  of  a  permanent  object  "  occupying  "  space,  consisting 
of  parts  existing  side  by  side  simultaneously,  cannot  be 
resolved  into  any  series  of  merely  subjective  feelings  suc- 
ceeding one  another  in  my  or  anybody  else's  mind.  The, 
idea  of  space  and  the  correlative  conception  of  extended' 
substance  is  a  creation  of  thought,  and  has  the  "objectivity"! 
belonging  to  thought.  The  world  of  things  in  space  therew- 
fore — unlike  my  pleasures,  pains,  and  emotions  —  is  a 
world  which  is  the  same  for  all ;  but  still  it  exists  for  mind  , 
and  not  outside  mind,  and  it  would  not  be  real  at  all  if 
that  which  we  think  did  not  reveal  itself  in  actual  experi- 
ence under  certain  conditions  to  some  actually  feeling 
conscience.  The  back  of  the  moon  is  real,  though  nobody 
(it  may  be)  has  seen  it  or  climbed  its  mountains,  because 
it  exists  for  thought  now;  but  that  thought  would  be 
shown  not  to  be  a  thought  of  reality,  a  true  thought,  if 
somebody  got  round  to  the  back  of  it  and  failed  to  experi- 
ence the  sensations  of  touch  and  sight  which  we  believe 
he  would  experience. 

The  attempt  to  distinguish  between  thought  and  reality 


20      THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS   OF   THEISM 

has  brought  us  to  a  difficulty.   We  have  been  compelled  to 
admit  the  reality  of  the  things  which  no  eye  of  man  has 
seen  and  no  hand  has  touched,  because  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances they  would  be  seen  or  thought ;  if  that  be  so, 
they  exist  only  when  they  are  actually  thought  of.     But,i 
it  may  be  said,  does  not  this  make  Science  a  delusion?] 
Geology  tells  us  that  the  earth  was  once  a  mass  of  molten 
matter,  and   before   that  of  gaseous   matter.     When   no 
mind  of  man  or  animal  was   in  existence  to   feel   that 
intolerable  heat,  or  even  to  think  of  it,  in  what  consisted 
the  reality   of   that  world  which  science   reveals  to  us? 
Can  it  be  said  that  it  was  a  real  world  then  because  we 
infer  its  existence  now  ?    Does  the  world  of  the  past  begin 
to  exist  when  its  past  existence  first  dawned  upon  the 
mind  of  an  eighteenth -century  geologist?     What  of  all 
the  undiscovered  facts  about  the  universe,  of  all  the  truth 
which   is   waiting  to  be  discovered,  but   is   not  yet  dis- 
covered?    Does   that    existence    consist   in   a   perpetual 
potentiality?     Can  a  potentiality  exist  by  itself?    Accord- 
ing to  the  view  we  have  hitherto  taken,  the  world  was 
once,  in   a  sense,   all   potentiality !     What   is   meant   by  I 
potential  existence  ?     A  thing  which  is  one  thing  actually 
may  be  potentially  something  else,  i,e.  it  will  turn  into 
something   else   under    certain   conditions.      The   ^gg   is 
potentially  a  chicken,  but  can  there  be  such  a  thing  as  ; 
a  potential  chicken  which  is  yet  actually  nothing  ?     What  J 
sort  of  existence  is  this — an  existence  which  is  not  any- 
thing,  but   might   be   something    under    certain    circum- 
stances?    Have  we  not  affirmed  the  existence  of  some- 
thing which  we  admit  to  be  a  nonentity  ?    And  then  if  the 
world  was  once  nothing  except  potentially,  how  can  it  ever 
have  become  an  actuality?     Can  that  which  is  not  pro- 
duce, give  birth  to,  cause  that  which  is  ?     Can  the  ground  , 
or  cause  of  the  existent  be  found  in  the  non-existent,  I 
of  the  real  in  the  unreal  ?     These  questions  surely  need  I 


THE   UNIVERSAL   MIND  21 

only  to  be  propounded  to  be  answered  in  the  negative. 
If  we  have   seen  reason   to  believe   that  nothing  really 
exists  except  mind  and  that  which  exists   for  mind,  it : 
is  clearly  not  our  minds  that  have  always  existed ;  it  is  j 
clearly  not  the  case  that  what  you  or  I  know  and  feel 
has  reality,  while  that  of  which  we  have  no  sort  of  know- 
ledge or  experience  has  none.     If  therefore  that  which  is 
not  experienced  or  even  thought  of  by  any  human  con- 
sciousness   is    to  have  any  existence  at   all,   there   must; 
be  a  Mind  for  which  all  things  exist  always:    we  musti 
say  that  the  fiery  mass  of  the  pre-animal  solar  system' 
existed  always  in  a  universal  Mind,  and  that  in  his  Mind 
there  exists  to-day  whatever  stars  the  astronomer's  tele- 
scope has  not  yet  sighted.     Such  a  Universal  Mind  it  is^ 
that  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  God. 

The  existence  of  God  is  thus  shown  to  be  an  absolute 
necessity  of  thought.  It  is  not  "  proved  "  in  the  sense  of 
being  demonstrated  in  the  way  that  one  particular  truth 
of  science  can  be  demonstrated  as  logically  flowing  from 
some  other  particular  truth.  Nor  does  it  appear  to  me  at 
least  that  the  existence  of  God  is  self-evident  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  axioms  of  mathematics  are  self-evident.  But 
it  is  a  belief  which  is  necessary  to  explain  our  experience. 
It  is  found  on  reflection  to  be  necessarily  implied  or  in- 
volved in  all  our  experience. 

We  cannot  understand  the  world  of  which  we  form 
a  part  except  upon  this  assumption  of  a  Universal  Mind,  \ 
for  which,  or  in  which,  all  that  is  exists.  Such  is  the  line 
of  thought  which  presents  itself  to  some  of  us  as  the  one 
absolutely  convincing  and  logically  irrefragable  argument 
for  establishing  the  existence  of  God.  And  yet  I  know 
that  so  strange  are  these  metaphysical  conceptions  until 
one  has  become  familiarised  with  them  by  slow  habitua- 
tion, that  very  acute  minds  may  wholly  fail  to  make  the 
admission   on   which  all  turns — that   "things"  can   only 


22      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF   THEISM 

exist  for  mind.  Are  we  to  admit  that  no  one  can 
rationally  believe  in  the  existence  of  God  until  he  can 
be  brought  to  make  this  admission  ?  Far  from  it.  It  is 
highly  probable  that  some  of  my  readers  who  may  fail 
to  accept  the  metaphysical  theory  known  as  Idealism,  who 
may  fail  to  be  convinced  that  things  exist  only  for  mind, 
may  yet  be  led  by  the  argument  we  have  gone  through  to 
reflect  how  great  is  the  assumption  that  matter  can  exist 
without  mind,  and  they  may  find  in  this  line  of  thought 
some  reinforcement  of  the  common-sense  conviction  that 
mind  cannot  ultimately  be  simply  the  product  of  blind, 
unthinking  matter — that  however  real  or  self -existent 
matter  may  be  when  once  in  existence,  it  cannot  have 
existed  entirely  by  itself,  and  must  have  originally  owed 
its  existence  and  the  orderly  laws  by  which  it  is  governed 
to  mind.  The  metaphysical  argument  is  after  all  only 
a  fuller  and  more  explicit  development  of  what  is  implied 
in  the  commonplace  conviction  of  the  mass  of  men  that 
the  world  must  have  had  a  Creator,  and  of  others  who, 
though  they  may  find  difficulties  in  the  idea  of  an  absolute 
beginning  of  matter,  cannot  conceive  of  matter  except  as 
perpetually  dominated  and  controlled  by  mind.  Such 
persons  may  find  their  conviction  strengthened  by  the 
following  considerations. 

Let  us  return  to  the  main  thread  of  our  argument.     All  j 
things  must  exist  for  God,  must  be  eternally  present  in  / 
the  mind  of  God.     But  what  do  we  mean  by  "  present "  ?  | 
What  do  we  mean  by  the  thought  of  God?     It  is  best\ 
frankly  to  confess  at  once  that  we  do  not  know.     It  is 
common  with  writers  of  the  Hegelian  School  (or  rather 
with  that  right  wing  of  the  Hegelian  School  which  really 
believes  in  the  existence  of  a  divine  Consciousness,  and 
not  in  a  mere  deity  of  abstract  "  categories  "i)  to  assume 

1  The  Hegelian  tendency  to  mistake  the  abstract  form  or  categories  of 
self-consciousness,  firstly  for  the  self  and  then  for  God  or  Reality  as  a  whole, 
has  been  powerfully  criticised  by  Mr.  Herbert  Bradley,  and  by  Prof.  Pringle- 
Patterson  (Seth)  in  his  Hegelianism  and  Personality. 


EXPERIENCE   ONLY   REAL  23 

that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  simply  the  same  as  our 
knowledge  of  things  when  we  think  of  them  apart  from 
present  perception,  except  that  our  knowledge  is  in  part 
while  God's  knowledge  is  of  the  whole.  They  never  seem 
to  realise  how  absolutely  a  reference  to  actual  perception  is 
implied  in  all  our  knowledge.  I  can  think  of  the  greenness 
of  the  tree,  but  that  word  "  green  "  would  mean  nothing  to 
me  apart  from  what  I  have  once  seen.  I  may  generalise 
the  idea  of  green,  and  make  abstraction  of  much  that  was 
actually  contained  in  each  particular  perception.  What 
I  saw  was  either  light  green  or  dark  green :  what  I  think 
is  simply  green.  My  idea  of  green  in  general  excludes 
the  difference  between  light  green  and  dark  green ;  if  so, 
it  is  of  course  an  idea  of  something  which  I  could  not 
possibly  see,  for  the  seen  green  must  be  either  light  or 
dark  or  medium.  Or  you  may  say  that  (if  I  know  all 
about  green)  my  idea  of  green  would  include  all  these 
alternatives ;  it  is  the  idea  of  a  colour  which  may  be  light 
or  dark  or  medium,  and  which  must  be  one  of  them. 
But  still  it  is  meaningless  apart  from  what  I  have  actually 
experienced ;  and,  when  I  think  of  it,  the  notion  is  meaning- 
less, apart  from  what  I  or  some  other  being  might  experi- 
ence. And  experiences  which  I  have  not  had  I  can  only 
think  of  by  some  more  or  less  vague  analogy  to  what  I 
have  experienced.  I  can  suppose  a  pain  intenser  than 
I  have  ever  felt,  but  such  conceptions  mean  to  me  very 
little  indeed,  though  the  knowledge  may  be  quite  enough 
to  guide  action.  It  is  the  same  even  with  those  elements 
of  our  experience  which  we  are  right  in  referring  not  to 
sense,  but  to  thought.  My  idea  of  space  in  general,  or 
of  a  triangle  in  general,  is  not  derived  from  mere  sense, 
but  it  presupposes  sensible  experience,  and  is  meaningless 
apart  from  it.  I  may  think  of  a  triangle  in  general  which  is 
not  either  a  large  triangle  or  a  small  one,  but  such  thoughts 
are  abstractions,  not  realities.      Triangularity  is  simply  the 


24      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

name  for  the  shape,  alike  in  all,  of  the  triangular  things 
which  I  have  seen  or  felt,  or  might  feel  and  think.  The 
shape  is  not  real  apart  from  the  things  which  have  that 
shape,  and  the  things  are  perceivable  only  by  sensation. 
Everywhere  the  reality  of  the  objects  which  we  know 
has  more  or  less  immediate  reference  to  the  facts  of 
perception.  And  therefore  it  is  meaningless  to  ascribe 
a  knowledge  of  the  various  thoughts  of  qualities  which 
in  us  are  derived  from  present  perceptions  to  a  conscious- 
ness which  never  has  had,  or  will  have,  those  perceptions. 
We  may  conceive  obscurely  God  as  knowing  what  things 
look  like  to  us  who  see,  though  He  sees  not.  But  that 
does  not  remove  the  difficulty  as  to  how  a  consciousness 
which  does  not  feel  can  know  what  it  is  to  feel.  I  offer 
no  solution  of  the  difficulty ;  I  only  protest  that  the  idea 
of  a  purely  thinking  consciousness  conveys  no  intelligible 
meaning  to  us.  We  can  only  think  of  the  divine  Conscious- 
ness by  the  analogy  of  our  own.  Such  conceptions  must 
necessarily  be  inadequate,  but  we  do  not  make  them  less 
inadequate  by  attributing  to  God  only  the  more  abstract 
elements  in  our  thoughts  and  eliminating  altogether  the 
actual  experiences  which  give  our  thoughts  all  their  mean- 
ing. It  may  be  that  the  divine  Consciousness  is  less 
unlike  our  thinking  activity  than  it  is  unlike  our  present 
perceptions.  It  may  be  that  the  difference  between  actual 
present  perceptions  and  the  thought  of  what  may  be 
perceived  does  not  exist  at  all  in  God ;  certainly  we 
cannot  suppose  that  the  difference  for  God  can  be  the 
same  as  it  is  for  us,  if  only  because  present  perception  is 
with  us  localised  in  a  bodily  organ.  We  can  only  say 
that  the  same  line  of  thought  which  leads  us  to  believe 
that  the  world  which  we  know  fragmentarily — with  a 
knowledge  that  comes  and  goes,  and  always  has  its  origin 
and  starting-point  in  present  perception  or  feeling — does 
exist  somehow  in  the  Consciousness  of  God,  involves  also 


GOD   IS   A  WILL  25 

the  inference  that  in  God's  Consciousness  there  must  be 
feeh'ng  also  as  well  as  thought,  or  something  analogous 
to  feeling  as  well  as  something  analogous  to  thought. 

At  this  point  it  will  be  well  to  stop  and  take  account 
of  the  conclusions  to  which  we  have  been  so  far  led. 
We  have  tried  to  make  it  plain  that  the  existence  of  God 
is  a  necessity  of  thought.  But  what,  from  our  present) 
point  of  view,  does  "  God  "  mean.  So  far  it  merely  means  1 
a  Spirit  who  knows,  and  in  some  sense  experiences,  all  | 
reality.  The  present  argument  leads  us  up  to  the  idea  j 
of  a  Spirit  who  knows  all  that  is  real,  without  whom, 
nothing  that  is  known  could  exist — except,  indeed,  the 
spirits  or  selves  whose  relation  to  the  divine  we  have  not 
as  yet  examined.  A  divine  mind,  but  not  a  divine  will. 
For  all  that  appears  so  far,  we  might  remain  with  the 
conclusion  that  God's  relation  to  the  world  is  the  same 
as  ours,  except  that  our  knowledge  is  only  in  part.  We 
might  say  that  the  divine  Mind  makes  nature,  but  only  in 
the  sense  in  which  human  minds  make  nature.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  argument  to  suggest  that  God  is  the 
cause  of  Nature,  that  the  events  of  the  world's  history 
are  guided  by  his  will,  or  fulfil  his  purposes.  And 
here  some  Idealists  stop.  How  impotent  and  valueless 
for  any  practical  purpose  such  a  Theism  is  apt  to  be,  if  we 
do  not  subtly  import  into  it  religious  ideas  and  associations 
which  really  come  from  another  source,  I  need  hardly  stay 
to  point  out.  For  aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  this 
Idealist  Deity  might  be  thought  of  as  good,  and  yet  the 
world  to  which  by  some  unintelligible  but  inevitable 
necessity  He  finds  himself  linked  be  very  bad,  and  going 
from  bad  to  worse.  And  what  after  all  can  we  mean 
by  calling  a  will-less  deity  "good"?  What  possible 
grounds  of  hope  or  of  aspiration  can  there  be  in  such 
an  idea?  What  emotion  could  he  inspire,  what  worship 
could  he  merit?     Such  a  deity,  occupying  the  position 


26      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF   THEISM 

of  otiurn  cum  dignitate  ascribed  to  the  gods  of  Epicurus, 
would  be  as  little  worshipful  as  a  category  or  an  Equator. 
The  argument  by  itself  can  prove  little  that  is  of  value 
for  religion  or  for  morality :  but  it  forms  nevertheless 
the  necessary  starting-point  for  a  Theism  which  may  be 
worth  more.  If  we  are  to  carry  on  the  argument,  we 
must  start  afresh,  and  face  the  problem  of  Causation. 

When  we  were  asking  the  plain  man  to  say  what  he 
meant  by  the  "  thing "  which  he  insisted  must  be  there 
whether  he  felt  it  or  not,  there  was  one  element  in  his 
consciousness  to  which  we  did  not  do  justice.  At  bottom 
his  refusal  to  be  satisfied  with  any  explanation  of  the 
thing  that  made  it  merely  as  a  state  or  phase  of  his 
own  consciousness,  lay  in  his  conviction  that  the  cause 
or  source  of  the  feelings  which  he  experienced  did  not 
lie  in  himself.  Of  some  of  his  experiences  he  does  find 
the  cause  in  himself.  He  is  conscious  of  being  the  cause 
of  his  own  actions,  that  is  to  say,  he  is  conscious  of 
determining  his  own  volitions,^  and  within  certain  limits 
(determined  by  physical  facts  not  under  his  own  control) 
he  finds  that  these  volitions  produce  effects  in  the  world  of 
his  experience.  He  wills  to  eat,  and  (if  his  organism  be  in 
a  healthy  state  and  the  food  within  his  reach)  the  eating 
follows.  But  where  no  such  volition  has  been  exercised, 
the  experiences  that  happen  to  him  are  not,  he  feels, 
caused  by  himself;  many  of  them  are  unforeseen,  many 
of  them  are  unwelcome.  He  does  not  cause  them  :  yet  his 
reason  tells  him  that  they  must  have  a  cause.  No  doubt 
when  he  insists  that  the  cause  of  his  experience  must 
lie  there,  outside  himself,  in  the  space  which  is  occupied 
by  the  perceived  object,  he  is  forgetting  that  this  very 
space  is  part  of  the  experience  for  which  he  seeks  an 

^  Nothing  that  follows  necessarily  involves  what  is  commonly  called  the 
Freewill  or  Indeterminist  theory.  The  argument  is  satisfied  if  we  accept  the 
fact  of  "Self-determination"  in  that  sense  which  is  quite  compatible  with  a 
non-materialistic  Determinism, 


CAUSALITY  27 

explanation.  The  fact  that  the  impact  of  one  thing 
upon  another  in  space  is  followed  by  changes  in  that 
other  thing  makes  it  seem  natural  to  explain  the  appear- 
ance of  a  phsenomenon  in  his  experience  as  due  to  the 
impact  of  an  external  thing  upon  his  mind.  But  things 
are  outside  one  another ;  they  are  not  outside  the  mind  : 
the  mind  is  not  an  object  in  space.  Hence  he  has  no 
right  to  say  that  the  cause  of  my  perceiving  a  tree  must 
lie  outside  my  physical  organism,  and  in  the  tree.  The 
space-occupyingness  of  the  tree  is  as  much  part  of  the 
phsenomenon  of  which  I  want  the  explanation  as  any 
other  quality  in  the  object  as  perceived  or  thought  of 
by  me.  But  a  cause  for  my  there  and  then  seeing  and 
touching  the  tree  there  must  be.  It  is  a  necessity  of 
thought  to  suppose  that  nothing  which  has  a  beginning 
can  be  without  a  cause  why  it  should  begin  to  be. 

Primitive  man  was  disposed  to  account  for  all  the 
changes  of  nature,  or  at  least  for  any  change  involving 
motion  not  obviously  accounted  for  by  external  impact,  as 
due  to  spiritual  beings  like  himself.  He  was  conscious  of 
being  a  cause :  his  reason  demanded  a  cause  other  than 
himself  for  movement  which  he  did  not  cause  :  he  naturally 
inferred  that  the  cause  of  phaenomena  must  be  found  in  the 
same  sort  of  cause  outside  him. 

With  the  progress  of  knowledge,  however,  men  came  to 
observe  a  certain  regular  order  and  succession  in  their 
involuntary  experiences.  One  region  of  nature  after 
another  was  removed  from  the  domain  of  those  things  of 
which  there  seemed  to  be  no  other  explanation  than  the 
passions  or  caprices  of  individuals  like  himself,  and  was 
reduced  to  the  sphere  of  regular  law  or  uniformity.  The 
observed  uniformity  of  nature  involved  changes  in  men's 
ideas  about  nature:  (i)  The  discovery  that  all  changes 
in  nature  are  interconnected  and  interdependent,  that 
the  world  is  a  whole,  all  the  parts  of  which  are  mutually 


28      THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS   OF  THEISM 

interdependent,  made  it  impossible  to  explain  it  as  the 
result  of  independent,  jarring,  and  mutually  hostile  wills. 
If  the  universe  was  to  be  referred  to  minds,  science 
made  it  evident  that  it  must  be  referred  to  a  single  mind. 
(2)  The  idea  of  caprice,  irregularity,  unaccountability 
which  clave  to  the  older  form  of  anthropomorphism,  was 
replaced  by  the  idea  of  order,  plan,  design.  If  nature 
was  referred  to  a  mind,  it  was  a  rational  mind :  it  was  in 
man's  reason  rather  than  in  his  desires  and  caprices  that 
men  came  to  find  whatever  analogy  they  still  assumed 
between  man  and  the  universal  cause.  The  same  grow- 
ing knowledge  which  destroyed  the  idea  of  a  multitude 
of  jarring  personalities  substituted  the  idea  of  a  single 
rational  plan  for  the  idea  of  many  inconsistent,  mutable 
caprices.  The  purposes  of  nature,  for  those  to  whom 
nature  still  seemed  to  imply  a  purpose,  became  one 
purpose. 

For  many  minds  the  observed  regularity  of  nature, 
carrying  with  it  the  power  of  prediction  and  the  power  of 
limited  control  over  nature,  has  come  to  be  so  intimately 
associated  with  the  idea  of  Causality  that  it  has  substituted 
itself  for  that  idea  itself.  The  phaenomenal  conditions  under 
which  an  observed  phaenomenon  is  found  to  occur  are 
commonly  spoken  of  as  the  cause  of  that  phaenomenon. 
Some  have  even  brought  themselves  to  believe  that  it  is 
self-evident  that  nature  must  be  uniform ;  to  such  persons 
the  idea  of  interference  with  the  observed  course  of 
nature  by  a  spiritual  agency,  finite  or  infinite,  seems 
not  only  gratuitous  and  contrary  to  experience,  but  an 
a  priori  absurdity  or  unthinkability,  like  the  idea  of  two 
straight  lines  enclosing  a  space.  Of  course,  the  fact  that 
nature  is  observed  to  be  uniform  supplies  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  the  ultimate  cause  of  nature  does  work 
uniformly;  probable  arguments  are  always  based  upon 
partial  knowledge.     All   the  knowledge  we  have  of  the 


CAUSALITY   NOT   UNIFORMITY  29 

Cause  goes  to  show  that  that  Cause  is  uniform  in  its 
working :  hence  the  probability  that  it  will  always  be 
found  to  work  uniformly  is  enormously  more  probable 
than  the  contrary  supposition.  But  I  certainly  find  no 
difficulty  in  thinking  that  A  might  follow  B  a  hundred 
times,  and  not  follow  it  the  hundred  and  first  time. 
Mere  succession  is  not  causation.  A  succession  which 
does  not  explain  itself  when  it  happens  once  is  not  any 
more  intelligible  when  it  happens  a  hundred  times.  The 
actual  uniformity  of  nature  is  as  much  in  need  of  ex- 
planation as  a  conceivable  irregularity.  The  uniformity 
of  nature  (in  Lotze's  language)  is  a  necessary  postulate 
of  all  scientific  reasoning ;  it  is  no  necessity  of  thought. 

The  idea  of  uniform  succession  among  phaenomena  does 
not  satisfy  my  idea  of  Causality.  What  would  satisfy  it  ? 
We  observed  before  that  there  is  one  kind  of  causality  of 
which  we  are  immediately  conscious,  i.e.  the  causality 
of  our  own  wills.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  idea  of 
causality  is  got  from  our  own  experience  of  volition :  and 
to  this  mode  of  statement  it  is  rightly  objected  that  no 
experience  of  succession  could  put  the  idea  of  Causality 
into  a  mind  which  lacked  the  concept.  A  mere  observa- 
tion of  mental  determination  followed  by  an  observed 
motion  of  limbs  could  never  transform  the  idea  of 
succession  into  the  idea  of  Causality.^  The  idea  of 
Causality  is,  indeed,  an  a  priori  category  of  thought. 
We  are  by  nature  capable  of  asking  the  question  "Why?" 
No  experience  could  make  us  believe  that  something 
happened  without   some   reason   why  it   should   happen. 

^  This  is  only  an  objection  to  the  attempt  to  get  the  idea  of  "Causality" 
out  of  **  experience "  understood  in  the  sense  of  the  Sensationalistic 
Empiricist.  The  position  that  we  are  immediately  conscious  of  exercising 
activity  seems  to  be  practically  indistinguishable  from  the  position  that  the 
idea  of  Causality  is  logically  a  priori^  but  that  we  become  aware  of  it  only 
in  our  consciousness  of  volition.  For  a  psychological  defence  of  the  view  here 
assumed — that  we  are  conscious  of  exercising  activity— the  reader  may  be 
referred  to  Dr.  Stout's  Analytical  Psychology,  especially  Book  II.  chap.  i. 


30      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

What,  then,  is  implied  in  this  idea  of  Causality?  It 
seems  to  involve  two  elements:  (i)  the  idea  of  force  or 
power;  (2)  the  idea  of  final  cause.  If  the  idea  of  power 
be  objected  to  as  vague,  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  defini- 
tion or  explanation  of  an  ultimate  idea :  but  perhaps  for 
some  minds  it  may  seem  a  preferable  mode  of  statement 
if  I  say  that  the  ground  or  explanation  of  anything  that 
happens  must  be  found  in  something  which  already 
exists.  Events  must  have  their  ground  in  reality.  "  Ex 
nihilo  nihil  fit."  We  cannot  believe  that  something 
should  suddenly  appear  if  nothing  existed  before ;  or  that 
something  should  appear  which  has  no  connexion  with 
what  was  in  existence  already.  To  put  the  matter  in 
yet  another  way,  we  necessarily  believe  that  the  present 
state  of  a  thing  is  connected  with  its  past  states  :  the 
explanation  of  the  present  must  be  found  in  the  past,  or 
rather  in  something  which  persists  through  past  and 
present.  But  that  is  not  the  whole  of  the  explanation. 
If  I  am  told  that  A  is  A  because  it  was  B,  I  may  still 
ask  why.-*  Why  did  A  become  B?  and  my  curiosity  is 
not  satisfied  until  I  know  the  purpose  for  which  A  became 
B.  If  I  find  my  furniture  disturbed  during  my  absence, 
I  ask  "why"  did  this  happen.  When  I  discover  that  X 
did  it,  I  am  partially  satisfied,  but  I  still  press  the  ques- 
tion "Why?"  And  when  I  am  told  that  X  did  it  by  way 
of  a  joke,  and  that  X  is  a  kind  of  being  to  whom  such  a 
joke  appears  a  good  or  rational  end  of  action,  then  I  am 
satisfied :  then  the  occurrence  is  explained.  It  is  this 
union  of  power  with  purpose  which  satisfies  my  idea  of 
Causality.  And  such  a  union  can  only  be  found  in  a 
consciousness ;  it  is  only  in  consciousness,  so  far  as  we 
know  or  can  conceive,  that  a  final  cause  can  become  an 
efficient  cause,  that  power  and  end  can  meet,  that  the 
idea  which  is  found  good  can  pass  into  an  actuality.  The 
idea  of  Cause  is  derived  from  our  volition  in  the  sense 


GOD   IS   WILL  31 

that  all  our  ideas  or  concepts  are  derived  from  our  ex- 
perience ;  and  it  is  in  all  probability,  as  a  matter  of 
psychological  fact,  a  concept  which  we  should  not  have 
unless  we  were  willing  as  well  as  thinking  intelligences. 
At  all  events  in  our  experience  of  volition,  and  in  that 
experience  alone,  we  are  conscious  of  actually  exercising 
Causality.  There  alone  we  find  a  content  for  the  bare 
abstract  notion  of  "Cause."  The  idea  of  Cause  and  the 
idea  of  Will  mutually  imply  one  another.  The  argument 
which  leads  us  to  look  upon  God  as  willing  the  world's 
history  as  well  as  thinking  it  may  now  be  exhibited  in 
three  stages — 

(i)  We  have  the  a  priori  conviction — as  clear  and  as 
strong  as  our  a  priori  conviction  that  two  and  two  make 
four  and  cannot  make  six — that  events  cannot  happen 
without  a  cause,  and  this  idea  of  Causality  implies  such 
a  union  of  power  and  final  Cause  as  is  only  found  in, 
and  is  only  intelligible  in,  a  purposeful  or  a  causative 
intelligence,  i.e.  a  Will.  This  fact  by  itself,  even  apart 
from  other  metaphysical  presuppositions,  supplies  a  strong 
argument  that  the  ultimate  Reality — the  ground  or  source 
or  cause  of  all  that  happens — must  be  a  Rational  Will. 

(2)  A  quite  different  line  of  argument  has  already  led 
us  up  to  the  conviction  that  the  idea  of  matter  without 
mind  is  unintelligible,  and  that  the  world  must  be  thought 
of  as  perpetually  existing  in  and  for  a  universal  Mind  or 
Thought.  Our  analysis  of  Causality  now  leads  us  to 
think  of  this  Mind  as  not  only  thinking,  but  as  causing 
the  objects  of  his  own  thought ;  as  Will  as  well  as 
Thought.  For,  we  have  seen,  mind  is  the  only  thing  that 
can  really  be  a  cause  at  all. 

(3)  If  once  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  ultimate 
reality  is  spiritual,  analogy  would  lead  us  (even  apart 
from  the  Causality  argument)  to  compare  it  to  mind 
as  we  know  it.     We  know  nothing  whatever  of  thought 


32       THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

without  will.  We  can  form  no  idea  of  such  a  thing.  It  is 
as  much  an  abstraction  as  colour  without  surface  or  sensa- 
tion apart  from  time.  In  all  our  thinking  there  is  attention, 
and  attention  is  an  act  of  will.  In  every  waking  moment 
of  ours  we  are  thinking,  willing,  feeling.  If  therefore  on 
any  ground  we  are  led  to  find  the  origin  of  things  in  a 
thinking  Mind,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  that  Mind  is 
Will  as  well  as  Thought. 

It  may  of  course  be  freely  admitted  that  many  character- 
istics of  "  willing,"  as  it  appears  in  us,  cannot  possibly  be 
attributed  to  God.  People  sometimes,  no  doubt,  mistake 
the  mere  sense  of  effort,  which  is  largely  a  matter  of 
muscular  contraction,  or  the  choice  between  alternatives 
of  which  even  the  rejected  one  is  felt  to  be  attractive, 
for  the  essence  of  volition.  The  essence  of  volition,  for 
our  present  purpose,  is  the  conscious  origination  of  changes. 
However  much  we  insist  that  human  attributes  must  be 
applied  to  God  sensu  einmeritiori,  there  is  every  reason 
for  saying  that  the  concept  of  will,  in  this  sense,  must 
be  an  essential  element  of  the  best  conception  which  we 
can  form  of  God.  To  refuse  to  include  this  idea  in  our 
conception  of  God  is  to  refuse  to  think  about  Him  at  all ; 
for  the  idea  of  thought  without  will  has  simply  no  mean- 
ing whatever  for  us.  The  fact  that  God  wills  does  not,  it 
must  be  admitted,  actually  prove  what  He  wills,  but  it  will 
hardly  be  seriously  disputed  that  if  a  Universal  Thinker 
be  conceived  of  as  willing  at  all,  he  must  be  conceived  of 
as  willing  all  the  objects  of  his  thought,  i.e.  the  world. 

If  the  position  at  which  we  have  arrived  be  accepted,  it 
will  almost  inevitably  carry  with  it  what  is,  or  at  least 
what  ought  to  be,  meant  by  the  Personality  of  God. 
There  are,  no  doubt,  thinkers  who  will  accept  the  fore- 
going argument  so  far  as  it  tends  to  establish  the  "self- 
consciousness"  of  God,  but  will  hesitate  to  attribute  to 
Him  personality,  because  personality  seems  to  carry  with 


PERSONALITY  OF   GOD  33 

it  the  limitations  of  human  personality.  If  all  that  is 
meant  by  such  scruples  is  that  God  cannot  be  thought  of 
as  subject  to  the  same  sort  of  limitations  of  power  and 
knowledge  as  human  persons,  the  objection  might  be  met 
by  saying  that  God  must  be  thought  of  as  super-personal. 
Indeed,  we  may  say  (with  Lotze)  that  the  ideal  of  person- 
ality is  one  which  is  never  fully  attained  by  the  human 
consciousness,  and  that  God  is  the  only  being  who  is  in 
the  fullest  and  completest  sense  a  Person.  But  the  ob- 
jection to  the  term  person  is  very  likely  to  spring  from 
an  unwillingness  to  admit  any  distinction  between  God 
and  the  world.  We  must  therefore  say  a  word  as  to  the 
relation  which  the  view  we  have  taken  contemplates  as 
existing  between  God  and  {a)  the  material  world  or  things, 
(J?)  other  spirits. 

{a)  Gods  relation  to  things, — It  has  been  contended 
that  the  world  must  be  thought  of  as  perpetually  existing 
in  some  sense  in  the  mind  of  God.  So  much  is  common 
ground  for  all  genuine  Idealists.  And  it  may  be  admitted 
that  the  idea  of  a  subject  without  an  object  is  an  im- 
possible one.  In  that  sense  we  may  say  with  the  late 
Professor  T.  H.  Green,  that  "the  world  is  as  necessary 
to  God  as  God  is  to  the  world " ;  and  in  that  sense  we 
may,  if  we  please,  think  of  the  world  as  included  in  the 
very  being  of  God.  By  many  of  the  Schoolmen  the 
world  as  existing  in  the  mind  of  God  was  identified 
with  the  Logos,  the  Second  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 
But  the  expression,  "the  world  is  necessary  to  God," 
seems  to  suggest  that  the  world  is  as  independent  of 
God  as  the  objects  of  our  thought  are  independent  of  our 
will.  It  pictures  God  as  perpetually  annexed  by  some 
unintelligible  fate  to  a  world  quite  alien  to  his  own  inner 
nature  as  to  some  Siamese  twin  from  whom  He  would 
perchance,  but  cannot,  part.  It  may  even  be  contended 
that  such  a  view  really  exaggerates   the  distinctness  of 


34      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

God  from  the  world,  and  fails  to  adhere  to  that  Monism, 
that  tendency  to  reduce  the  world  to  a  single  principle, 
in  the  interest  of  which  it  is  conceived.  The  only  sense 
in  which  Theism  is  concerned  to  establish  such  a  distinct- 
ness is  the  sense  that  this  world  is  what  it  is  by  reason 
of  the  will  of  God ;  so  much  seems  implied  in  the 
Hegelian  formula  that  God  must  be  thought  of  as  a 
being  who  creates  the  objects  of  his  own  thought  if  only 
the  term  "  create  "  be  taken  seriously  enough.  Once  admit 
the  idea  of  Will  into  our  conception  of  God,  and  there  is 
an  end  to  all  danger  of  any  pantheistic  identification 
between  God  and  the  world. 

(J?)  The  relation  between  God  and  other  Spirits, — What- 
ever may  be  thought  as  to  the  relation  of  God  to  time, 
other  spirits  at  all  events  have  a  beginning  in  time,  and 
the  fact  of  that  beginning  must  have  a  cause.^  Now  we 
know  that  the  appearance  of  conscious  life  in  the  world 
is  dependent  upon  certain  material  conditions:  every 
stage  in  the  development  of  such  life  is  conditioned  by 
the  development  of  certain  bodily  organisms.  When 
once,  therefore,  it  is  admitted  that  the  bodily  organisms 
(like  other  material  things)  must  be  thought  of  as  caused 
by  the  Will  of  God,  the  admission  will  carry  with  it 
the  further  proposition  that  the  beginning-to-be  of  the 
spirits  themselves  is  also  due  to  that  Will.  And  if  we 
once  admit  a  causative  relation  between  the  supreme 
Spirit  and  the  other  spirits,  we  shall  avoid  all  identification 
between  the  spirits  and  God.  No  doubt  there  is  a  re- 
semblance, an  identity  of  nature  between  God  and  all 
other  spiritual  existence,  especially  in  the  higher  stages 
of  its  development,  such  as  we  do  not  feel  to  exist 
between  God  and  any  mere  object  of  thought.  There 
is   therefore   no   objection  to  saying  that  a  human  soul 

1  Since  Mr.  Bradley's  Appearance  and  Reality  the  position  that  the  in- 
dividual  self  is  timeless  has  ceased  to  be  necessary  to  philosophic  orthodoxy. 


GOD   AND   SOULS  35 

is  a  "spark"  or  "emanation  of  the  divine,"  or  a  "limited 
mode  of  the  divine  self-consciousness,"  or  that  "human 
thought  is  due  to  the  partial  communication  to  the  human 
soul  of  the  divine  thought."  Such  formula  are  indeed 
of  great  value,  inasmuch  as  they  assert  that  there  is  a 
real  community  of  nature  between  the  human  soul  and 
the  divine,  and  that  our  knowledge,  though  imperfect, 
is  real  knowledge,  real  knowledge  of  the  world  as  it  is 
and  as  it  appears  to  God,  not  some  mere  unreal  phan- 
tasmagoria arbitrarily  devised  to  amuse  us  with  an  unreal 
appearance  of  knowledge,  as  it  has  been  represented  to 
be  by  some  philosophies.  But  such  expressions  must 
not  be  used  to  disguise  either  the  causal  dependence  of 
the  human  soul  upon  the  divine  will  or  the  distinctness 
of  God  from  such  souls  when  once  they  have  appeared. 
And  after  all  such  phrases  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
any  great  improvement  upon  the  old  biblical  statement 
that  God  "created  man  in  his  own  image  and  in  his 
own  likeness."  And  the  very  gist  of  this  likeness  is 
that  every  human  soul  exists  "for  itself,"  instead  of 
being  (like  any  mere  thing)  only  the  object  of  another's 
thought.  To  speak  of  a  spirit  which  is  for  itself  as 
being  included  in  or  being  part  of  another  or  identical 
with  another  spirit  is  to  deny  all  that  is  meant  by  the 
assertion  that  it  is  a  self  or  a  spirit.  And  if  it  be 
admitted  that  the  human  spirit  has  an  existence  of  its 
own,  not  identical  with  the  divine,  the  admission  should 
remove  any  lingering  scruples  about  the  ascription  of 
Personality  to  God.  It  may  indeed  be  admitted  that  God 
knows  all  that  goes  on  in  our  minds  in  a  way  which  we  do 
not  know  the  thoughts  of  other  minds,  that  He  in  some 
way  overcomes  that  "  impenetrability  "  which  is  sometimes 
supposed  to  be  an  essential  characteristic  of  Personality ; 
but  that  does  not  amount  to  the  really  meaningless 
assertion  that  God's  existence  "  includes  "  the  existence  of 


36      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

these  finite  spirits.  Such  an  assertion  may  have  a  meaning 
in  the  mouths  of  those  to  whom  God  is  simply  a  name 
for  the  totality  of  limited  self-consciousnesses  together 
with  the  world  which  they  know ;  but  it  is  unintelligible 
in  the  mouth  of  anyone  who  really  believes  in  God  as  a 
self-consciousness  which  is  not  merely  those  finite  spirits. 
God  may  think  or  feel  all  that  we  think  or  feel ;  but  if  He 
does  so,  then  over  and  above  that  feeling  or  thinking  of 
his,  there  will  remain  the  thinking  or  feeling  which  I  call 
myself.  Two  spirits  thinking  or  feeling  alike  will  be 
for  ever  two  and  not  one.  These  remarks  are  not  made 
with  any  desire  to  detract  from  the  intimacy  of  the 
communion  which  we  may  suppose  to  exist  between 
the  divine  mind  and  the  human ;  but  communion  implies 
the  existence  of  two  spirits,  and  is  destroyed  when  the 
union  between  them  passes  into  identity.  To  speak  of 
the  human  heart  craving  for  such  a  union  with  God 
as  to  destroy  personal  distinctness  is  perhaps  a  natural 
exaggeration  of  religious  poetry  or  religious  rhetoric, 
but  when  it  is  adopted  as  a  statement  of  literal  fact. 
Philosophy  breaks  down  the  barrier  which  separates  sober 
thinking  from  pure  Mysticism. 

To  some  minds  the  admission  that  God  is  not  the 
human  soul  of  which  nevertheless  He  is  the  cause  may 
seem  to  carry  with  it  the  position  that  God  is  "limited" 
or  "finite."  In  that  sense  of  the  word  "limited"  in  which 
the  being  of  anything  is  said  to  be  limited  by  being 
distinct  from  something  else,  by  not  being  that  other 
thing,  in  that  sense  I  should  most  certainly  admit  that 
God  is  finite  inasmuch  as  He  is  not  man.  The  Infinite 
in  the  sense  of  some  philosophers  means  simply  that 
which  admits  of  no  negative  predicate,  which  is  everything 
and  of  which  we  cannot  say  that  there  is  anything  that  is 
not  it.  But  the  words  "limited"  or  "finite"  in  the  language 
of  theology  or  religion  usually  carry  with  them  the  sense 


IS   GOD   INFINITE?  37 

of  imperfection  or  disparagement.  God  is  not  limited 
by  his  creatures  if  by  that  is  meant  that  He  is  constrained, 
confined,  impeded  by  something  outside  Himself,  since 
the  appearance  and  the  continued  existence  of  these 
spirits  is  due  to  his  will :  they  spring  from  his  own  being. 
We  may,  if  we  like,  say  that  they  are  still  within  Him 
inasmuch  as  they  are  still  the  object  of  his  thought,  or 
that  their  thoughts  are  fully  known  to  Him;  but  such 
language  is  unnatural  and  misleading,  inasmuch  as  it 
almost  inevitably  suggests  the  idea  either  that  God  is 
no  more  than  they  or  that  each  finite  spirit  is  merely  a 
part  of,  an  effluence  from,  a  fleeting  and  unsubstantial 
phase  of  God.  It  is  a  pity  that  language  which  naturally 
suggests  such  pantheistic  developments  should  often  be 
played  with  by  those  who  have  no  real  sympathy  with 
them.  Even  by  speaking  of  God  as  "  the  Infinite " 
theologians  have  often  involved  themselves  in  such  non- 
theistic  lines  of  thought ;  but  the  term  may  be  accepted 
in  the  sense  that  there  is  nothing  which  exists  independ- 
ently of  the  will  of  God :  whatever  limitation  is  implied  in 
the  existence  of  other  spirits  is  a  self-limitation,  not  an 
arbitrary  self-limitation  but  one  which  necessarily  springs 
from  the  nature  and  character  of  God. 

So  far  our  conception  of  God  has  been  based  upon 
purely  metaphysical  considerations :  we  have  left  out 
of  account  the  moral  considerations.  Cardinal  Newman 
has  declared  that  for  the  existence  of  God  he  wants  no 
other  argument  than  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  Con-j 
science.  It  is  perhaps  difficult  to  construct  an  argument 
for  the  existence  of  God  which  resolutely  makes  abstrac- 
tion of  all  not  purely  ethical  considerations.  The  very 
idea  of  Morality  would,  indeed,  be  unintelligible  when  taken 
wholly  apart  from  the  other  activities  of  that  single  Self, 
of  which  Conscience  is  but  one  aspect  or  manifestation. 
But  certain  it  is  that  the  existence  of  Conscience  is  among 


38       THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

all  the  facts  of  consciousness  the  one  which  most  imperi- 
ously demands  the  idea  of  God  for  its  explanation.  The 
existence  of  Conscience  supplies  one  of  the  great 
arguments  for  supposing  that  God  exists :  it  supplies  the 
sole  grounds  for  saying  anything  about  his  character  or 
purposes.  We  have  already  seen  that  even  metaphysical 
arguments  for  his  existence  owe  something  to  the  Practical 
Reason ;  since  the  merely  intellectual  understanding  of 
volition  was  found  to  involve  the  idea  of  end  or  purpose 
or  final  cause ;  and  we  should  know  nothing  about  final 
causes  but  for  the  consciousness  of  ourselves  as  exerting 
causality  with  a  view  to  an  end  which  we  desire  or  pro- 
nounce good.^  The  judgment  that  a  thing  is  good,  or 
possesses  value,  is  the  judgment  of  Practical  Reason,  or 
what  is  popularly  called  Conscience. 

But  now  let  us  confine  ourselves  to  what  may  be  inferred 
from  the  existence  of  this  Practical  Reason.  It  is  un- 
deniable that  our  moral  judgments  are  in  themselves  quite 
independent  of  all  theological  or  metaphysical  considera- 
tions. When  I  pronounce  that  a  certain  end  is  intrinsically 
good,  and  that  therefore  this  action  which  tends  to  bring 
it  about  is  intrinsically  right,  my  words  have  a  meaning 
which  is  intelligible  (if  it  is  not  fully  intelligble)  apart 
from  all  beliefs  or  disbeliefs  as  to  the  ultimate  origin,  con- 
stitution, or  destiny  of  the  universe.  Such  judgments  of 
value  may  be  pronounced,  have  been  pronounced,  are 
constantly  being  pronounced,  and  acted  upon  by  people 
who  have  no  positive  belief,  or  a  positive  disbelief,  in  God 
and  a  future  life.  And  good  men,  in  proportion  to  their 
goodness,  will  certainly  continue  to  act  on  such  judgments, 
whatever  becomes  of  their  speculative  beliefs.     But  all  the 

^  I  do  not  mean  that  to  desire  and  to  pronounce  good  are  the  same  thing. 
All  desire,  when  reflected  on,  suggests  the  idea  of  final  cause,  but  that 
demand  of  Reason  for  a  final  cause  is  ovXy  fully  satisfied  by  the  desire  which 
the  moral  consciousness  approves. 


MORAL  JUDGMENTS   OBJECTIVE  39 

same  it  is  not  difficult  to  show  that  that  which  they  mean 
cannot  be  fully  justified  without  the  assumption  that  the 
ultimate  Reality  is  spiritual.  When  I  say  "  this  is  good  " 
{e.g.  this  or  that  person's  happiness)  I  do  not  mean  merely 
that  I  happen  to  like  it.  It  may  be  something  which  can 
only  be  attained  by  sacrifice  or  loss  on  my  part :  if  that 
is  the  case,  I  feel  that  I  ought  to  take  that  step,  though 
it  brings  me  no  pleasure.  I  do  not  merely  mean  that  the 
end  is  one  which  I  should  like  to  be  realised.  For  other 
people  might  not  like  the  end  or  object  achieved.  Both 
statements  would  be  true — that  I  like  it  and  that  X 
does  not  like  it ;  neither  of  us  would  be  wrong  in  his 
assertion.  But  that  is  not  what  I  mean  by  saying  "it 
is  good."  My  judgment  is  "objective."  I  mean  that  if 
somebody  else  judges  differently,  one  or  both  of  us  is 
wrong.  This  does  not  imply  a  claim  to  personal  infalli- 
bility on  my  part ;  quite  the  contrary.  The  very  essence 
of  my  conviction  is  that  things  are  right  or  wrong  quite 
independently  of  my  judging  them  to  be  so,  quite  in- 
dependently of  my  likings  or  dislikings.  When  I  say 
"  happiness  is  good,"  or  "  this  particular  kind  of  happiness 
is  good,"  I  mean  that  anyone  who  thinks  it  not  good 
makes  a  mistake,  just  as  much  as  when  he  says  that  two 
and  two  make  five.  That  is  what  I  mean,  but,  of  course, 
I  may  be  wrong.  People  may  make  mistakes  in  their 
moral  judgments  just  as  they  may  make  mistakes  in  doing 
a  sum  of  simple  arithmetic.  When  a  man  does  a  sum  of 
addition,  and  pronounces  that  the  answer  is  so  and  so,  he 
does  not  merely  mean  "  I  have  made  the  answer  so  and 
so,"  his  judgment  claims  to  be  universally  true,  true  objec- 
tively, true  for  all  actual  or  possible  intelligences.  And 
when  he  says  "  this  is  right,"  he  equally  implies  an  objective 
assertion :  the  essence  of  his  assertion  would  be  gone  if 
he  were  to  suppose  that  "  right "  meant  simply  the  course 
of  action  which  happens  to  commend  itself  to  him. 


40      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

Moral  truth  or  falsity  then  is  objective.  And  yet  we 
know  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  our  human  moral  ideas  have 
slowly  evolved.  We  believe  that  cruelty  to  animals  is 
wrong  ;  yet  there  was  a  time  when  no  human  being  saw 
anything  wrong  in  cruelty  to  animals.  And  even  among 
educated,  civilised,  reputedly  moral  adults,  there  are  grave 
differences  of  moral  judgment.  There  are  degrees  of  moral 
insight  just  as  there  are  degrees  of  musical  appreciation  ; 
and  even  between  the  most  sensitive  consciences  there  are 
differences  of  moral  ideal,  just  as  there  are  some  dif- 
ferences of  musical  taste  among  the  most  musical.  Every 
man  in  making  a  moral  judgment  claims  universality  for 
it ;  that  is  part  of  his  meaning,  and  yet  no  one  can 
seriously  believe  that  his  particular  moral  ideal  is  an 
absolutely  true  one,  that  his  moral  consciousness  is  the 
absolutely  flawless  mirror  of  the  absolute  moral  truth. 
What  is  morally  good  always  was  morally  good  and 
always  will  be  so;^  so  much  is  implied  in  every  moral 
judgment.  But  when  and  where  does  this  absolute  right- 
ness  exist?  What  sort  of  reality  has  this  rightness  or 
intrinsic  goodness  ?  The  same  question  may  be  raised 
about  the  laws  of  physical  nature :  we  saw  that  it  was 
impossible  to  think  of  those  laws  as  having  their  existence 
merely  in  our  transitory  minds  or  as  properties  of  a  self- 
existing  matter,  that  the  objectivity  even  of  our  ordinary 
judgments  about  matters  of  fact  implied  for  their  justifi- 
cation the  existence  of  a  Universal  Mind.  But  still  the 
Materialists  can  plausibly  explain  the  physical  laws  of 
nature  as  existing  in  matter.  At  all  events,  the  objec- 
tivity of  those  laws,  their  independence  of  our  chance 
thinkings  or  likings,  forces  itself  upon  us  in  the  most 
palpable  manner.     The  attempt  to  "  cloy  the  hungry  edge 

1  This  does  not  imply  that  the  same  concrete  actions  are  always  right,  since 
under  different  circumstances  the  true  end,  in  so  far  as  it  can  be  promoted  at 
all,  must  be  promoted  by  different  means. 


MORALITY   IMPLIES   THEISM  41 

of  appetite  by  bare  imagination  of  a  feast,"  refutes  by  its 
palpable  failure  the  attempt  to  deny  the  reality  of  a 
physical  world  independent  of  us,  whatever  metaphysical 
interpretation  we  may  put  upon  this  "independent  exist- 
ence." But  what  account  can  we  give  of  this  moral 
"  objectivity  "  ?  Can  it  be  explained  on  any  but  a  spiritual- 
istic interpretation  of  the  world  ?  If  the  ultimate  Reality, 
or  source  of  Reality,  be  spiritual — if,  in  short,  there  be 
a  God — then  we  can  regard  his  thought  and  his  will,  his 
ultimate  purpose,  as  the  reality  of  which  our  moral 
judgments  are  the  more  or  less  inadequate  representa- 
tions. They  are  true  or  false  in  proportion  to  their 
conformity  to  this  standard.  On  any  other  supposition 
the  "  objectivity "  which  our  moral  judgments  claim 
remains  inexplicable.  We  might,  of  course,  we  should 
undoubtedly  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  our  natural 
desire  for  the  ends  which  we  pronounce  good,  continue  to 
guide  our  own  actions  by  these  judgments.  But  on  reflec- 
tion we  should  be  forced  to  admit  that  the  only  objectivity 
which  we  could  rationally  claim  for  them  would  be  their 
conformity  to  the  judgments  of  other  human  beings ;  but 
at  bottom  we  should  have  to  admit  that  moral  judgments 
are  only  the  actual  ways  of  thinking  about  conduct  which 
de  facto  prevail  among  a  race  of  bipeds  who  happen  to 
have  been  evolved  during  what  Mr.  Balfour  has  called 
a  "  brief  and  transitory  episode  in  the  life  of  one  of  the 
meanest  of  the  planets."  It  is  one  of  the  worst  prac- 
tical results  of  such  an  admission  that  the  only  objectivity 
which  moral  judgments  admit  of  is  their  conformity  to 
public  opinion  ;  and  from  that  there  is  but  a  step  to  the 
admission  that  "the  man  who  wants  to  be  more  moral 
than  his  world  is  already  on  the  threshold  of  immorality.'" ^ 

^  Bradley,  Ethical  Studies ^  p.  i8o.  Of  course,  if  the  meaning  be  merely 
that  his  motive  should  not  be  the  surpassing  of  his  neighbours,  the  principle 
would  be  harmless  enough. 


42      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

Those  who  have  given  up  belief  in  a  moral  Deity  can 
hardly  avoid  making  a  god  of  public  opinion.  A  robust 
Agnostic  conscience,  like  that  of  Huxley,  which  defies 
a  "  darkening  universe,"  and  opposes  his  own  moral  con- 
victions to  those  of  the  world,  proclaims  its  profound 
belief  in  an  objectivity,  which  really  demands  Theism 
for  its  explanation.  Our  moral  judgments  claim  to  be,  in 
so  far  as  they  are  true,  the  law  of  the  universe.  They 
can  only  be  the  law  of  the  universe  if  (with  Plato)  we 
find  the  source  of  reality  and  morality  in  one  and  the 
same  "  idea  of  the  Good,"  and  an  idea  can  have  its  abode 
only  in  a  Mind. 

The  idea  of  Personality  which  we  ascribe  to  God  is 
complete  when  we  regard  Him  as  not  only  a  Reason  and 
a  Will,  but  as  moral,  as  objectively  good.  By  this  it  is  not 
of  course  meant  that  his  action  is  limited  by  our  accepted 
rules  of  morality.  We  recognise  that  in  detail  our  moral 
rules  must  be  adapted  to  our  nature  as  human  beings; 
many  of  them  imply  the  possession  of  a  bodily  organism 
and  relations  to  other  such  organisms.  What  is  meant  is 
that  the  ideal  life  for  man  must  be  such  as  commends 
itself  to  the  supreme  mind — that  God  pursues  ends  which 
possess  absolute  value,  and  that  our  ends,  so  far  as  they 
are  the  right  ends  for  us,  must  be  in  principle  identical 
with  the  end  or  ends  which  have  value  for  God.  Philoso- 
phies which  deny  all  real  distinction  between  the  divine 
and  the  human  consciousness  tend  more  or  less  explicitly 
either  to  deny  goodness  to  God,  sometimes  constructing  a 
picture  of  an  "  Absolute  "  who  is  certainly  no  fitting  object 
of  worship  for  men  believing  Benevolence  to  be  a  virtue, 
or  to  deny  the  validity,  not  merely  of  our  moral  judgments 
in  detail,  but  of  our  whole  moral  ideal.  They  pronounce 
that  acts  which  in  human  beings  we  should  call  bad  are 
really  good,  inasmuch  as  (no  less  than  the  acts  which  we 
call  good)  they  tend  to  bring  about  the  end  which,  being 


GOD   AND   EVIL  43 

the  end  of  the  universe,  must  be  thought  of  as  essentially 
good.  A  glance  into  the  history  of  thought  might  reveal 
the  fact  that  the  immoral  tendency  of  all  pantheising 
philosophy  has  not  always  been  merely  speculative.  In 
the  political  sphere,  at  all  events,  the  doctrine  that  **  what- 
ever is,  is  right,"  has  borne  the  fruit  that  might  have  been 
expected  of  it. 

But  it  may  be  objected,  "  How  do  you,  on  your  part, 
reconcile  a  theory  which  ascribes  the  existence  of  the 
world  to  the  volition  of  a  perfectly  good  Deity — and  a 
Deity  whose  goodness  is,  in  principle,  the  goodness  of 
our  human  ideals — with  the  existence  of  so  much  un- 
deserved suffering  and  so  much  inevitable  moral  evil?" 
The  discussion  of  this  great  problem  would  require  a 
separate  Essay;  but  no  argument  for  Theism  is  likely 
to  have  the  smallest  weight  with  those  who  have  ever 
doubted  it,  which  does  not,  however  inadequately,  touch 
upon  this,  the  fundamental  difficulty  of  Theism.  Lotze,^l 
the  one  philosopher  of  our  time  who  is  at  once  a  thinker  | 
of  the  very  highest  rank  and  wholly  and  unexceptionably 
Christian  in  his  thoughts,  has  confessed  that  he  not  only 
knows  no  solution  of  the  problem  of  evil,  but  that  he  does 
not  in  the  least  know  in  what  direction  to  look  for  one. 

To  the  first  of  these  statements  I  should  be  prepared 
heartily  to  assent ;  and  if  I  were  compelled  to  assent  to 
the  second,  I  should  (with  Lotze)  contend  that  no  such 
difficulties  can  destroy  the  validity  of  the  line  of  argu- 
ments, which  points  to  these  two  conclusions,  "  the  ultimate 
source  of  Reality  is  a  rational  will,"  and  "  the  ultimate 
source  of  Reality  is  good."  But  I  do  not  think  we  need 
stop  short  at  the  point  at  which  Lotze  does  stop.     The 

^  The  MicrocosjHus  is  easier  reading  than  the  Logic  and  Meiaphysic,  but  is 
a  very  long  work.  A  sufficient  idea  of  Lotze's  attitude  towards  religious 
questions  may  be  obtained  from  his  short  Philosophy  of  Religion.  All  these 
works  have  been  translated  into  English. 


44      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

line  of  thought  which  suggests  that  God  is  the  cause  of 
all  things,  and  that  He  is  good,  will  carry  us  further. 
If  God  is  good,  then  the  ultimate  end  of  the  universe 
must  be  good.  Anything  that  appears  evil  must  be 
really  a  means  to  the  good.  Following  this  line  of 
thought,  it  is  usual  with  optimistic  thinkers  to  go  on  to 
contend  that  consequently  those  means  that  appear  evil 
are  not  really  evil  at  all,  that  evil  is  but  the  other  side 
of  good,  etc. — and  herewith  the  whole  of  the  paralysing 
Pantheism  to  which  I  have  already  alluded.  But  to  assert 
that  that  which  my  moral  judgment  condemns  as  evil  is 
really  very  good,  is  to  condemn  myself  to  utter  scepticism. 
I  am  just  as  certain  that  pain  and  sin  are  not  good  as  I 
am  of  the  first  principles  of  reasoning.  Compel  me  to 
doubt  the  first,  and  I  must  doubt  the  second  ;  and  if  I 
doubt  that,  I  have  no  longer  any  reason  for  affirming  or 
denying  anything  at  all.  The  end  must  justify  the  means 
certainly,  but  that  does  not  prevent  the  means  from  being 
bad.  A  surgical  operation  is  certainly  justified  so  long  as 
the  end  cannot  be  attained  without  the  means ;  but  the 
pain  remains  an  evil.  The  same  end  without  that  pain 
would  be  still  better  than  the  end  with  that  means.  No 
matter  what  the  goodness  of  the  end  which  is  being 
realised  by  this  universe  of  ours,  the  pain  and  the  evil  in 
it  can  never  become  good.  A  being  who  is  compelled  to 
attain  his  ends  by  the  use  of  means  which  are  bad  must 
in  a  sense  be  regarded  as  limited.  And  this  limitation 
has  generally  been  admitted  by  reasonable  theologians. 
Bishop  Butler,  for  instance,  admits  that  there  may  be 
things  which  are  intrinsically  as  impossible  as  for  God 
to  change  the  past.  The  same  limitation  in  principle  is 
really  implied  by  the  explanation  of  evil  as  the  work  of 
a  personal  devil,  however  groundless  such  a  belief  may  be, 
and  however  little  it  really  gets  rid  of  the  difficulty.  It 
is  perhaps  not  so  much  from  the  theologians  as  from  the 


IS   GOD  OMNIPOTENT?  45 

philosophers  that  objections  are  likely  to  come.  Directly 
we  admit  that  God  is  limited  by  an  essential  nature  of 
things  (it  will  be  urged),  we  are  really  giving  up  our 
theistic  view  of  the  universe.  God  ceases  to  be  the 
ultimate  source  of  reality ;  He  becomes  merely  a  part  of 
reality,  and  we  have  abandoned  the  monistic  idealism 
which  we  profess  to  have  accepted. 

Now  it  is  not  impossible  to  combine  a  sincere  Theism 
with  the  admission  that  God  is  not  all  and  did  not 
make  all.  The  old  Greek  philosophers  admitted  a  v\r], 
which  was  not  created  by  God,  though  it  could  be — 
partially  and  imperfectly — controlled  by  God,  and  made 
subservient  to  his  ends.  And  Dr.  Martineau  seems  in- 
clined to  adopt  a  somewhat  similar  view.  To  Origen  and 
to  the  modern  Pluralists  souls  are  without  beginning  and 
coeternal  with  God.  Now  I  do  not  myself  feel  disposed 
to  take  refuge  in  such  a  view,  much  as  it  has  to  say  for 
itself  The  pre-existence  of  souls  seems  to  me  a  gratui- 
tous hypothesis,  opposed  to  all  the  probabilities  and  analo- 
gies which  our  experience  suggests.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  pre-existence  of  matter  seems  alike  inconsistent  with 
the  modern  science  which  declines  to  distinguish  matter 
from  its  laws  and  with  an  idealistic  metaphysic  which 
compels  us  to  reject  the  idea  of  a  matter  with  a  nature  of 
its  own  independent  of  the  knowing  subject  And  it  is 
not  necessary,  because  we  think  of  God  as  limited,  to  think 
of  Him  as  limited  by  anything  outside  Himself  The 
limitation  springs  from  his  own  nature.  All  the  theories 
by  which  philosophers  and  theologians  have  sought  to 
reconcile  the  facts  of  the  world's  history  with  the  perfect 
goodness  of  God  really  involve  a  certain  limitation  of 
power.  That  is  the  conclusion  to  which  the  actual  exist- 
ence of  moral  evil,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the 
condemnation  of  it  by  the  moral  consciousness,  seems  to 
point.     There  is  a  sense  in   which   God   is  finite.     He 


46      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF   THEISM 

is  finite,  not  in  the  sense  of  being  limited  by  some  ex- 
ternal law  or  blind  overruling  fate,  by  some  thing  or  some 
person  outside  Himself,  but  in  the  sense  in  which  every 
thing  that  is  real  is  limited.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what 
the  negation  of  this  last  proposition  would  really  mean. 
Space  is  infinite,  because  space  is  not  a  thing;  it  is  not  real ; 
it  is  mere  "form,"  a  system  of  intellectual  relations  in  which 
all  real  things  must  find  a  place,  but  not  real  in  itself. 
The  real  is  necessarily  finite.  /  We  may  nevertheless  think 
of  God  as  infinite,  inasmuch  as  He  is  not  limited  by  any- 
thing outside  Himself,  inasmuch  as  everything  that  is 
springs  from  his  perfectly  righteous  will  and  thought. 
When  theologians  have  interpreted  infinitude  as  meaning 
more  than  this,  they  have  usually  fallen  into  that  pan- 
theistic optimism  which  ends  by  destroying  those  moral 
convictions  upon  which  all  theology  rests.  God  is  infinite 
because  He  is  the  ground  of  all  that  is ;  He  is  Omnipo- 
tent because  He  is  the  cause  of  all  that  is  ;  He  is  infinitely 
good  because  He  wills  the  best  that  He  has  it  in  Him  to 
produce.  Such  a  deity  will  be  described  by  some  as 
"anthropomorphic."  I  am  content  that  it  should  be  so. 
Some  of  us  will  prefer  an  anthropomorphic  Deity  to  the 
God  who  is  only  matter  disguised  or  a  mere  intellectual 
abstraction  or  a  magnified  devil.  An  anthropomorphic 
Deity  in  this  sense,  I  venture  to  contend,  is  the  only  Deity 
who  satisfies  the  demands  of  our  rational  and  our  moral 
nature.  It  is  only  by  the  analogy  of  our  own  conscious- 
ness that  we  can  form  a  conception  of  "  Spirit "  at  all,  and 
if  there  be  any  truth  in  idealism,  God  is  Spirit. 

Such  is  the  conception  of  God  to  which  we  are,  as  it 
seems,  led  by  the  usa  of  our  Reason.  It  would  take  me 
too  long  to  enter  upon  a  formal  argument  to  show  that 
this  conception  of  God  is  also  that  which  is  set  before  us 
by  Christianity,  or  (to  be  more  definite)  by  the  religious 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  and  by  the  religious  consciousness 


REVELATION  47 

which  IS  revealed  in  that  teaching.  I  simply  put  it  to  my 
readers  that  these  two  conceptions  are  the  same.  And 
this  is  what  we  might  naturally  expect  if  the  teaching  and 
the  personality  of  Christ  are  to  be  regarded  as  constituting 
in  any  sense  a  divine  revelation.  For  our  Lord  Himself 
always  appealed  to  the  intrinsic  reasonableness  of  what  He 
said  as  the  proof  and  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  his 
doctrine.  Because  Reason  is  capable  of  assenting  to  the 
truth  of  religious  teaching  when  once  it  is  set  before  it,  it 
does  not  follow  that  Reason,  or  rather  my  Reason,  could 
have  attained  to  the  knowledge  by  its  own  unassisted 
efforts.  And  yet  this  opposition  between  unassisted  and 
assisted  Reason  is  really  opposed  to  the  principle  which 
finds  in  Christ  the  highest  manifestation  under  human 
limitations  of  the  Divine  Thought.  It  was  in  Christ  that 
the  human  Reason  first  attained  with  complete  self- 
consciousness  to  that  view  of  the  divine  nature  which  in 
a  purely  formal  way  we  have  attempted  to  establish  on 
metaphysical  and  rational  grounds.  I  say  "  in  a  purely 
formal  way,"  because  all  that  we  have  hitherto  said  about 
God's  nature  is  that  it  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  "  mind  " 
and  as  "  good."  The  content  which  we  give  to  that  idea 
will  depend  upon  the  concrete  standard  which  we  adopt 
as  our  ideal  of  life ;  and  it  was  because  in  Jesus  Christ  the 
moral  as  well  as  the  religious  consciousness  of  man  is  felt 
to  have  attained  its  highest  development  that  Christians 
are  able,  without  any  surrender  of  the  claims  of  Reason 
or  of  Conscience,  to  regard  the  teaching,  the  life,  and 
the  character  of  Christ  as  constituting  a  "  Revelation  of 
God." 

To  discuss  the  nature  of  Christ's  teaching  or  of  his 
Personality  or  the  meaning  of  "revelation"  does  not 
form  a  part  of  our  present  aim.  Still  less  is  it  possible 
to  ask  in  detail  how  far  the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the 
Church  about  the  nature  of  God  and  his  revelation  in 


48      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

Christ  can  be  accepted  consistently  with  the  philosophical 
position  to  which  we  have  been  led.  All  that  I  can 
attempt  is  to  point  out  very  briefly  how  the  Theism  for 
which  I  have  contended  supplies  a  basis  for  a  rational 
interpretation  of  Christian  doctrine. 

(i)  The  view  of  the  divine  nature  to  which  we  have  . 
been  led  is  one  which  is  essentially  in  harmony  with  the  / 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  essentially  a  philosophical  doctrine — a  doctrine 
based  upon  data  supplied  by  Christ's  own  conception  of 
God  and  his  relation  to  Him — but  still  undeniably  a 
metaphysical  doctrine ;  and  not  the  actual,  explicit  teach- 
ing of  Christ.  It  had  a  slow  growth  and  a  long 
development ;  it  cannot  be  contended  that  it  has  at  all 
times  meant  the  same  thing.  But  I  take  the  doctrine  as 
it  is  presented  to  us  in  the  fully  developed  scholastic 
teaching  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  We  are  there  told  that 
the  "tres  Personse"  are  "tres  proprietates" — three' essential 
and  eternally  distinct  attributes,  as  we  might  paraphrase 
the  term.  God  is  essentially  Power,  Wisdom,  and  Will ; 
or  (since  the  divine  Will  is  always  a  will  for  good)  the 
Third  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  may  be  equally  de- 
scribed as  "Goodness"  or  "Love."  Is  not  this  precisely 
the  view  of  God's  nature  to  which  we  have  been  led  on 
purely  rational  grounds — that  He  is  the  Union  of  Power, 
Wisdom,  and  Goodness,  the  will  for  the  good  springing 
from  the  union  of  Power  with  Wisdom  ^  We  shall  also 
be  prepared  to  accept  that  scholastic  doctrine,  here  still 
more  closely  treading  in  the  steps  of  the  Platonising 
Fathers,  which  sees  in  the  Logos  or  Sapientia  Dei  the 
whole  world  as  eternally  present  in  idea  in  the  Divine 
Mind,  in  Creation  the  gradual  unfolding  of  that  idea. 
Even  inanimate  nature  is  part  of  the  thought  of  God; 
He  is  still  more  fully  revealed  in  the  life  of  souls— with  in- 
creasing fulness  as  animal  life  passes  into  the  intellectual, 


THE   INCARNATION  49 

moral,  and  religious  life  of  humanity.  He  is  revealed  in 
a  pre-eminent  degree  by  the  teachers  and  the  prophets 
who  have  taught  the  highest  ideals  of  life  and  the 
worthiest  views  of  the  divine  nature.  And  for  those  to 
whom  the  history  of  the  world  is  really  the  work  of  a 
divine  Will,  not  the  blind  process  of  necessary  develop- 
ment in  which  the  later  stages  are  simply  the  products 
of  the  earlier  stages,  there  is  no  reason  why  that  divine 
Wisdom,  who  is  God  Himself,  should  not  be  regarded  as 
pre-eminently  manifesting  Himself  once  for  all,  uniquely, 
in  one  historical  personality.  The  personal  view  of  God's 
nature  prepares  the  way  for  the  idea  of  a  personal 
revelation. 

(2)  The  rationality  of  the  idea  of  an  Incarnation  depends 
upon  the  view  which  is  formed  of  the  divine  nature  and  of 
the  human.  The  view  we  have  taken  of  the  divine  nature 
is  that  human  nature  is  the  same  in  principle  with  the 
divine.  "God  created  man  in  his  own  image."  Every 
human  soul  is  an  emanation  from  the  divine,  a  reproduction 
of  the  divine.  But  not  all  souls  represent  the  divine  in  equal 
measure.  All  who  accept  the  idea  of  a  God  who  is 
good  must  admit  that  the  better  the  soul  and  the  more 
profound  its  spiritual  insight,  the  more  fully  that  soul 
can  be  regarded  as  representing  or  revealing  God.  If 
an  actual  historical  person  is  actually  pronounced  by 
the  moral  and  the  religious  consciousness  to  embody 
the  highest  ideal  of  human  life  and  of  the  true  relation 
between  God  and  man,  such  a  person  may  be  regarded 
on  this  ground  alone  as  in  a  unique  sense  a  revelation 
of  God. 

By  some  it  will  probably  be  thought  that  this  view 
of  the  Incarnation  would  be  more  in  harmony  with  that 
view  of  the  relation  between  God  and  man  which  actually 
includes  the  consciousness  of  man  in  God,  which  denies 
all  real  independence  to  the  human   consciousness,  and 


50      THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS   OF  THEISM 

makes  every  man  simply  a  phase  of  the  divine  Being. 
Such  a  view  is,  as  I  have  ventured  to  contend,  fatal  to  a 
really  ethical  view  of  God.  However  little  such  a  con- 
sequence may  be  acknowledged,  such  a  view  must 
necessarily  tend  either  to  transferring  to  God  the  badness 
of  the  bad  soul  or  else  in  denying  that  the  bad  soul  is 
really  bad.  The  moral  and  the  religious  consciousness 
equally  demand  that  the  human  soul  shall  be  regarded 
as  a  distinct  person,  the  human  will  as  a  distinct  will  from 
God's.  The  divine  Wisdom  may  be  regarded  as  present 
in  the  individual,  illuminating  his  understanding,  inspiring 
his  will — more  or  less,  in  proportion  to  the  actual  con- 
formity between  his  will  and  character  and  the  divine 
Ideal.  Similarly,  when  we  turn  to  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  idea  of  an  Incarnation  loses 
all  its  value  when  either  (a)  the  divine  Logos  is  thought  of 
as  supplanting  and  taking  the  place  of  the  human  will 
and  understanding,  as  is  virtually  done  by  many  popular 
views  of  the  Incarnation  which  have  a  strong  tendency  to 
Apollinarianism,  or  (d)  the  divine  Logos  is  thought  of 
as  equally  present  to  all  human  souls,  or  therefore  as 
not  present  in  any  exceptional  sense  in  the  Person  of 
Christ.  Without  laying  much  stress  upon  the  technical 
refinements  of  the  later  Catholic  Christology,  we  may 
recognise  in  it  a  general  conformity  with  the  demands 
of  a  philosophy  based  on  the  "primacy  of  the  practical 
Reason,"  inasmuch  as  it  recognises  that  (i)  the  divine 
Logos,  present  in  all  souls  to  some  extent  and  in  some 
degree,  was  pre-eminently  present  in  the  human  soul 
of  Christ,  and  (2)  that,  however  great  the  coincidence 
between  the  moral  and  religious  ideals,  between  the  will, 
the  character  of  the  human  Jesus  and  of  the  God  who  was 
revealing  Himself  in  and  through  Him,  there  remain  two 
natures,  two  wills,  two  natures,  not  one. 

How  far  the  historical  facts  enable  us  to  attribute  such 


MIRACLES  51 

a  position  to  the  historical  Christ  will  be  considered  in 
more  than  one  of  the  following  essays.  Meanwhile  I 
merely  add  that  it  is  essential  to  such  a  view  of  the 
Incarnation  as  has  been  inadequately  suggested  in  these 
few  sentences  that  there  shall  be  no  claim  for  infallible 
or  unlimited  knowledge  of  matters  of  fact  on  the  part 
of  the  man  Jesus  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  the  limitation 
of  Christ's  human  knowledge,  now  so  widely  known  and 
accepted  through  the  influence  of  Bishop  Gore,  is  the 
necessary  presupposition  of  any  view  of  the  Incarnation 
which  can  claim  to  be  regarded  as  philosophical.  It  may 
be  that  our  view  of  this  limitation  may  have  to  be  carried 
somewhat  further  than  would  commend  itself  to  many  of 
those  who  have  been  most  prominently  associated  with  the 
doctrine.  But  it  is  not  my  object  here  to  develope  a  view 
of  Incarnation,  but  to  leave  room  for  one. 

(3)  A  word  must  be  said  as  to  the  bearing  of  Theism 
of  the  kind  here  advocated  upon  the  question  of  Miracles. 
Apart  from  experience  there  is,  so  far  as  I  see,  no  reason 
why  it  should  be  assumed  that  the  course  of  nature  should 
be  uniform.  By  those  who  think  of  God  as  a  Will,  the 
idea  of  a  "miracle,"  in  the  sense  of  an  exception  to  the 
uniformities  commonly  prevailing  among  phaenomena, 
ought  not  to  be  pronounced  an  a  priori  inconceivability. 
There  is,  indeed,  no  difficulty  about  reconciling  the 
"uniformity  of  nature"  with  a  miracle,  even  in  the 
common  acceptance  of  the  term,  if  we  are  prepared  to 
admit  that  the  will  of  God  or  of  some  other  "super- 
natural being"  may  be  included  in  that  "sum  of  conditions" 
which,  from  the  scientific  point  of  view,  is  regarded  as 
the  cause  of  the  phaenomenon.  A  rational  Deity  must 
be  thought  of  as  guiding  his  action  upon  some  intelligible 
and  universal  principle,  and  this  principle  may  be  regarded 
as  a  "  higher  law,"  under  which  both  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature  and   the   exceptional   event   may  be   brought. 


52       THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF   THEISM 

But  this  is  to  use  the  word  "law"  in  a  very  different 
sense  from  that  in  which  the  term  is  employed  in  science. 
Such  exceptional  events  would  have  to  be  thought  of  as 
violations  of  what  is  ordinarily  meant  by  the  uniformity 
of  nature  —  of  uniformity  in  that  sense  which  is  pre- 
supposed by  all  ordinary  scientific  reasoning.  We  might 
indeed  hold  that  under  similar  "  conditions  "  the  phaenome- 
non  would  occur  again,  i.e.  when  the  purpose  served  by 
the  exceptional  event  could  again  be  served  by  its  repeti- 
tion ;  but  this  inclusion  of  "  final  causes "  among  the 
"conditions"  of  a  phaenomenon  violates  all  the  assump- 
tions upon  which  ordinary  scientific  reasoning  is  based,  ^ 
There  would  be  an  end  to  the  possibility  of  scientific 
prediction  were  we  to  suppose  that  the  question  whether 
a  saint's  finger  will  be  chopped  off  by  a  machine  depends 
not  upon  the  momentum  of  the  instrument  at  the  moment 
before  the  introduction  of  the  finger,  but  upon  the  spiritual 
advantages  to  be  secured  by  the  saving  of  the  finger.  I 
hold,  therefore,  that  a  miracle,  in  the  common  acceptation 
of  the  term,  would  be  really  a  violation  of  what  is  com- 
monly meant  by  the  uniformity  of  nature,  though  it  would 
not  be  a  violation  of  the  law  of  causality.  Every  event 
must  have  a  cause,  but  the  cause  need  not  be  one  that 
works  uniformly. 2  A  violation  of  the  uniformity  of  nature 
in  the  sense  explained  I  do  not  regard  as  a  priori  incon- 
ceivable.    The  objection  to  such  a  view  is  that  all  our 

1  How  far  it  is  possible  to  explain  biological  phsenomena  without  the  con- 
ception of  "final  cause"  is  a  question  on  which  I  will  not  venture  to  express 
an  opinion. 

'^  "But  why  so  confidently  assume,  we  might  reply,  that  a  rigid  and 
monotonous  uniformity  is  the  only,  or  the  highest,  indication  of  order,  the 
order  of  an  everliving  Spirit  above  all  ?  How  is  it  that  we  depreciate 
machine-made  articles,  and  prefer  those  in  which  the  artistic  impulse,  or  the 
fitness  of  the  individual  case,  is  free  to  shape  and  to  make  what  is  literally 
manufactured,  hand-made?  .  .  .  Dangerous  as  teleological  arguments  in 
general  may  be,  we  may  at  least  safely  say  the  world  was  not  designed  to 
make  science  easy  ...  To  call  the  verses  of  a  poet,  the  politics  of  a  states- 
man, or  the  award  of  a  judge  mechanical,  implies,  as  Lotze  has  pointed  out, 


LAW  53 

experience  of  the  actual  course  of  events  goes  to  show 
that  the  ultimate  cause  does  not  work  after  this  fashion, 
but  in  accordance  with  general  or  uniform  laws;  so  that 
if  all  the  observable  conditions  of  a  phsenomenon  are 
correctly  observed,  the  recurrence  of  the  conditions  may 
be  expected  to  bring  with  it  the  recurrence  of  the  phse- 
nomenon. 

Our  knowledge  of  nature  not  being  complete,  we  cannot 
pronounce  it  inconceivable  that  there  should  be  excep- 
tions to  this  procedure ;  but  the  probabilities  against  such 
exceptions  are  enormous.  In  this  as  in  other  cases, 
probable  reasoning  is  based  upon  imperfect  knowledge  of 
causes.  Moreover,  though  the  objection  to  the  accept- 
ance of  a  miracle  in  the  sense  defined  must  be  regarded 
as  springing  from  experience,  the  experience  is  so  uniform 
in  character  as  to  suggest,  though  not  to  prove,  that 
there  must  be  some  reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why 
such  an  event  should  be  impossible.  At  all  events,  to 
admit  in  practice  the  possibility  of  such  an  event  is  to 
destroy  the  canons  upon  which  not  only  our  ordinary 
reasoning  about  matters  of  science,  but  in  particular  our 
ordinary  canons  of  historical  criticism,  are  based.  Postu- 
lates cannot  be  proved ;  but  when  they  are  denied,  we 
have  no  longer  a  basis  for  argument.  Sincere  Theists 
will,  indeed,  continue  to  hold  that  it  is  not  inconceivable 
that  God  should  have  governed  the  world  otherwise 
than  in  accordance  with  general  laws  {i.e.  laws  of  uniform 
sequence),  but,  as  He  does  not  appear  to  do  so,  there 
must  be  some  good  reason  why  He  does  not.  We  must 
suppose  that  it  is  better  that  the  world  should  be  governed 

marked  disparagement,  although  it  implies,  too,  precisely  those  characteristics 
— exactness  and  invariability — in  which  Maxwell  would  have  us  see  a  token  of 
the  Divine." — Dr.  James  Ward,  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism^  i.  pp.  108-9. 
I  should  hardly  have  ventured  to  put  forth  so  slight  a  suggestion  of  so  un- 
fashionable a  view  of  Causality,  but  that  I  am  now  able  to  refer  the  reader 
who  may  find  it  unsatisfying  to  this  brilliant  work. 


54      THE   ULTIMATE   BASIS   OF  THEISM 

by  general  laws.  It  is  not  a  priori  inconceivable  that  in 
the  whole  course  of  history  there  should  be  one  single 
exception  to  such  a  uniform  mode  of  action,  but  it  may 
well  be  thought  morally  inconceivable  that  any  spiritually 
important  consequences  should  be  dependent  on  the  belief 
in  an  historical  event  which  would  be  so  utterly  incapable 
of  establishment  by  testimony  as  a  supposed  solitary  ex- 
ception to  an  otherwise  uniform  course  of  nature. 

But  are  what  are  commonly  called  miracles  inconsistent 
with  the  laws  of  nature?  Does  this  general  principle — 
that  natural  laws  are  not  "suspended" — necessarily  in- 
volve the  negation  of  any  alleged  historical  event  for 
which  we  cannot  account  consistently  with  the  uniformity 
of  nature  ?  It  may  be  contended,  indeed,  that  our  know- 
ledge of  nature  is  never  so  perfect  as  to  enable  us  to 
exclude  the  supposition  of  the  interference  with  the 
ordinary  course  of  events  (as  it  appears  to  ordinary 
observation)  by  a  hitherto  unsuspected  law;  but  prac- 
tically it  may  be  said  that  there  are  many  cases  in  which 
our  knowledge  is  really  sufficient  to  exclude  the  admissi- 
bility of  such  an  event,  if  we  do  not  wish  to  plunge 
ourselves  into  a  scepticism  which  would  make  historical 
research  and  practical  life  alike  impossible.  The  actual 
suspension  of  the  earth's  motion  or  the  occurrence  of  any 
phsenomenon  which  would  produce  an  apparent  "stop- 
ping of  the  sun"  may  be  said  to  belong  to  this  class. 
And  I  think  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  if  this  principle 
of  criticism  be  adopted,  its  application  cannot  be  regarded 
as  stopping  with  the  Old  Testament.  The  rising  of  the 
saints  out  of  the  tomb  with  their  bodies,  and  some  of 
what  are  called  the  "nature-miracles,"  may  surely  with 
tolerable  confidence  be  placed  in  this  class.  But  we  must 
very  narrowly  limit  the  area  in  which  it  is  reasonable 
to  exclude  the  possibility  that  extraordinary,  and  to  us 
unaccountable,  events  may  have  occurred.    When  we  come 


WILL  AND  LAW  55 

to  the  operations  of  mind,  it  is  questionable  how  far  we 
can  apply  the  idea  of  "  law "  in  its  ordinary  sense  at  all ; 
since  no  mental  phaenomenon  can  be  regarded  as  caused 
by  antecedent  phaenomena  in  the  sense  in  which  one 
physical  event  causes  another  physical  event,  since  the  mind 
is  not  merely  a  succession  of  psychical  phaenomena.^ 
And  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  our  knowledge  of 
the  limits  which  are  set  by  natural  law  to  the  control 
capable  of  being  exercised  by  mind  on  the  phaenomena 
of  organic  nature,  and  still  more  by  mind  upon  mind,  is 
extremely  imperfect.  We  do  know  something  of  those 
limits.  To  suppose  that  the  most  exceptionally  endowed 
human  soul  could  have  stopped  the  motion  of  the  sun 
would  be,  as  I  have  contended,  to  reject  the  assumptions 
upon  which  all  historical  research  and  all  scientific  reason- 
ing proceed.  But  to  suppose  that  some  diseases  can  be 
healed  by  mental  means,  that  some  persons  possess  more 
power  than  others  of  such  healing — this  is  not  opposed  to, 
but  in  conformity  with  what  we  know  of  the  action  of 
mind  upon  the  physical  organism ;  nor  can  our  present 
knowledge  be  held  to  exclude  the  belief  that  one  person 
may  have  had  a  power  unparalleled  in  history  of  effecting 
such  cures. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  doubted  whether  the  ordinary  action 
of  the  human  will  (putting  aside  altogether  the  hypothesis 
of  free  will  in  the  ordinary  indeterminist  sense)  can  be 
brought  within  the  common  conception  of  the  uniformity 
of  nature.  At  some  point  or  other,  if  the  self  is  really 
a  cause  (however  little  we  may  be  able  to  say  where  such 
interference  begins),  every  voluntary  act — every  case  where 
a  physical  event  is  determined  by  an  idea — there  must  be 
an  interference  with  the  course  of  nature,  as  it  would 

*  I  here  use  the  word  "caused"  in  the  sense  of  Physical  Science  and 
common  life.  I  have  contended  above  that  this  uniformity  of  succession 
is  not  really  a  case  of  causation. 


56      THE  ULTIMATE  BASIS  OF  THEISM 

be  without  the  action  of  soul  or  mind.  Every  such  act 
does  in  a  sense  "violate  the  laws  of  nature."  But  then 
experience  teaches  us  the  limits  of  such  violation.  We 
know  by  experience  that  some  muscles  are  subject  to 
voluntary  control,  and  others  are  not.  We  know  that, 
while  voluntary  action  does  alter  the  direction  of  physical 
forces,  it  never  suspends  the  law  of  gravity  or  the  conserva- 
tion of  energy.^  These  experiences  of  the  normal  limits  to 
the  power  of  voluntary,  i.e.  mental,  action  enable  us  to 
formulate  general  rules  which  are  reasonably  treated  as 
themselves  laws  of  nature.  But  as  to  what  these  limits 
are  we  are  dependent  entirely  upon  experience.  And  in 
some  cases  these  limits  cannot  at  present  be  said  to  be 
fixed  beyond  the  possibility  of  reasonable  doubt.  I  have 
myself  a  strong  conviction  that  the  result  of  "psychical 
research"  has  already  to  some  extent  brought,  and  may 
hereafter  be  to  a  still  greater  extent  able  to  bring,  recorded 
events  which  rationalistic  criticism  has  commonly  dismissed 
as  impossible  within  the  limits  of  what  may  be  regarded 
as  possible  without  any  further  violation  of  the  laws 
of  nature  than  is  implied  in  the  normal  action  of  the 
human  will.  But  there  is  no  probability  that  it  will  ever 
reverse  the  verdict  which  historical  criticism  and  the 
study  of  comparative  religion  have  passed  on  some  other 
events  recorded  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  ^ 

To  apply  this  principle  to  the  criticism  of  the  Gospel 
narratives  forms  no  part  of  my  present  purpose.  I  will 
conclude  with  suggesting  these  principles  as  philosophical 
canons  on  the  subject — 

{a)  The  idea  of  a  suspension  of  natural  law  is  not  a 
priori  inadmissible. 

{U)  At  the  same  time,  since  such  an  admission  would 

1  In  so  far  as  we  are  justified  in  assuming  it  at  all.  But  cf.  Ward,  op.  cit.^ 
I.  p.  214  sq.y  II.  pp.  36  sq.y  77  sq. 

2  There  are  some  interesting  remarks  on  this  subject  by  the  late  Mr. 
Frederick  Myers  in  his  review  of  Renan  in  Modern  Essays. 


CANONS   OF  CRITICISM  $7 

destroy  all  the  criteria  both  of  scientific  and  historical 
reasoning,  the  admission  of  such  a  suspension  could  not 
reasonably  be  accepted  without  an  amount  of  evidence 
which  is  practically  unattainable  in  reference  to  the  events 
of  the  distant  past. 

(c)  The  rejection  of  miracles  in  the  popular  sense  (i.e. 
suspension  of  natural  law)  is  not  incompatible  with  the 
recognition  of  exceptional  degrees  of  control  over  the 
forces  of  physical  nature  by  individual  mind  and  will. 

(d)  Our  faith  in  the  Incarnation  must  rest  primarily  on 
other  grounds  than  alleged  miracles,  and  must  be  of  a 
kind  which  does  not  demand  the  occurrence  of  physical 
miracles.  At  the  same  time  faith  in  such  an  Incarnation 
may  be  reasonably  strengthened  by  the  records  of  such  an 
exceptional  manifestation  of  the  forces  of  personality  if 
the  historical  testimony  is  sufficient. 

{e)  The  probability  of  an  alleged  event  of  this  nature 
must  depend  partly  upon  the  amount  of  historical  testi- 
mony in  its  favour,  partly  upon  the  extent  of  the  analogy 
between  it  and  other  events  for  which  we  believe  ourselves 
to  have  sufficient  evidence.  While  in  the  present  state  of 
opinion  it  is  extremely  unwise  to  base  any  article  of 
religious  belief  upon  the  acceptance  of  disputed  "psychical 
phaenomena,"  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  results  of 
recent  investigation  have  been  very  considerably  to  widen 
our  view  of  the  possibilities  of  such  personal  influences. 

It  forms  no  part  of  my  task,  as  I  have  said,  to  apply 
these  considerations  to  the  criticism  of  the  Gospel  narra- 
tives, but  I  will  allow  myself  one  concluding  remark  to 
prevent  misunderstanding  on  the  one  hand  or  on  the  other. 
I  believe  that  it  will  be  found  that  a  sober,  historical 
criticism,  based  upon  the  principles  here  suggested,  will 
leave  us  in  a  modified  form  the  beliefs  about  Christ's 
Person  which  are  most  cherished  among  ordinary  Chris- 
tians— notably  (i)  the  general  fact  that  much  of  his  time 


58      THE   ULTIMATE  BASIS  OF  THEISM 

was  spent  in  the  healing  of  physical  disease  by  means  of 
extraordinary  spiritual  capacities ;  (2)  that  after  his  death 
there  occurred  to  his  disciples  visions  of  Himself  which 
were  not  mere  subjective  delusions,  and  which  confirm — 
for  them  and  for  us — the  fact  of  his  continued  life  and 
love  for  his  followers.  Belief  in  miracles,  in  the  sense 
which  is  here  in  question,  may  not  be  wholly  without 
spiritual  value  even  now.  But  we  may  be  quite  confident 
that  for  minds  which  have  once  appreciated  the  principles 
of  historical  criticism,  or  minds  affected  by  the  diffused 
scepticism  which  has  sprung  from  historical  criticism,  neither 
religious  faith  in  general,  nor  any  doctrine  of  primary 
religious  importance,  will  ever  depend  mainly  upon  the 
evidence  of  abnormal  events  recorded  to  have  happened  in 
the  remote  past.  Criticism  must  be  wholly  free;  though 
when  it  is  seen  that  faith  is  independent  of  miracles,  it  may 
become  less  destructive  on  one  side  and  less  desperately 
apologetic  on  the  other.  Belief  in  God  will  rest  in  the 
long  run  upon  the  instinctive  rejection  of  materialism  by 
the  commonsense  of  mankind,  confirmed  by  the  reflective 
analysis  of  the  philosopher.  Belief  in  His  goodness  will 
rest  upon  the  testimony  of  the  moral  consciousness. 
For  minds  which  dare  not  explain  away  or  minimize  the 
presence  of  evil  in  human  life,  belief  in  Immortality  will 
be  a  corollary  of  that  goodness.  Belief  in  Christ  as  the 
supreme,  unique  Revealer  of  God  will  rest  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  the  same  moral  consciousness,  recognising  and 
welcoming  its  own  ideal  in  Him.  "  No  man  can  say  that 
Jesus  is  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  He  that  is  of 
the  light  cometh  to  the  light." 


II. 

THE   PERSON  OF  CHRIST 

By  W.  R.  INGE 


Page 


We  are  practically  obliged  to  form  our  ideas  of  God  from  the  highest 
principle  in  our  own  nature,  and  so  to  assume  that  Mind  or  Reason 
is  the  ruling  principle  of  the  universe  .  .  .         .       6i 

The  human  spirit  as  it  ought  to  be  is,  for  us,  the  World-Spirit  in  little, 
and  the  whole  cosmic  process  is  a  phase  of  His  life,  as  our  earthly 
lives  are  a  phase  of  our  life  as  immortal  spirits  ,  .         .       63 

The  expression  of  the  Divine  nature  (so  far  as  possible)  under  the  forms 
of  space  and  time  is  the  main  object  of  creation,  and  humanity  is 
the  chief  instrument  by  which  this  scheme  is  being  realised  on 
our  planet        ,  .  .  .  ...       64 

The  Incarnation  of  the  Word  of  God  is  thus  not  only  an  event  in  the 

past,  but  the  ideal  which  humanity  is  striving  to  realise  .         .      id, 

Christ  did  not  begin  to  be  the  light  of  the  world  at  the  Incarnation,  but 

"  He  was  in  the  world "  from  the  first  .  .  .         .       65 

The  moral  preparation  for  the  Incarnation  was  mainly  entrusted  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  intellectual  to  the  Greeks,  and  the  political  to  the 
Romans  .  .  .  .  ...       66 

Adumbrations  of  the  Incarnation  in  the  Old  Testament     .  .         .      id, 

Greek  and  Eastern  myths  point  to  a  widespread  recognition  that  only  a 

God- Man  can  redeem  humanity      .  .  ,  ,        ,      id. 

Growth  of  the  Logos-idea  in  philosophy.      Thales,  Heraclitus,  Plato, 

and  the  Stoics  progressively  developed  it        .  .  .         .       67 

The  Greek  and  Jewish  philosophies  of  religion  were  fused  at  Alexandria 
in  the  system  of  Philo,  whose  Logos-doctrine  anticipates  St.  John  to 
a  striking  extent  .  .  .  ...       68 

The  Logos  of  Philo  is  a  cosmical  principle  identical  with  the  **  intelli- 
gible world"  of  the  Platonists.  But  Philo  leaves  no  room  for  an 
Incarnation,  which  is  the  centre  of  the  Christian  revelation      .         ,      id* 

Though  the  Christian  Church  did  not  at  first  apprehend  all  the  truth 
about  Christ's  Person,  the  claim  of  her  theologians  to  be  merely 
interpreting  the  original  revelation  is  fully  justified        .  .      69 

59 


6o  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 


Pag« 


The  main  object  of  the  controversies  was  to  arrive  at  a  clear  under- 
standing of  the  concepts  *'God"  and  "Man,"  and  the  relations 
between  them.     The  problems  were  at  bottom  psychological    .         .       JO 

The  Greek  Church  worshipped  Christ  mainly  as  Prophet,  the  Roman  as 

King,  the  Reformed  Churches  as  Priest  .  .  .         .       71 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  Divine  predominated  too  much  over  the  human. 
In  the  first  two  centuries  after  the  Reformation  the  opposite  error 
prevailed.  Modern  philosophy  may  claim  to  have  brought  back 
Christology  to  its  true  path  .  ,  .  .         .      id. 

Some  early  steps  in  the  evolution  of  doctrine  may  be  mentioned  as 

still  instructive  .  .  .  ...       72 

The  theories  of  Adoption  into  Sonship  and  of  the  Incarnation  as  a 
mere  appearance  (Docetism)  were  both  rebutted  by  the  Johannine 
Logos-theology,  which  combines  belief  in  the  Logos-Christ  as  the 
World- Principle  with  belief  in  a  real  Incarnation  .  .         .      id. 

This  theology  received  a  further  development  at  the  hands  of 
Alexandrian  Platonism,  which  however  did  not  quite  solve  the 
problem  of  the  Person  of  Christ  .  .  •  •         •       73 

Much  less  could  Arianism  contribute  anything  of  value     .  .         .       74 

Disputes  about  the  "Nature"  and  "Person"  of  Christ.  There  was 
great  confusion  in  the  terminology  .  .  •         •       75 

The  Church  probably  decided  rightly  in  rejecting  Monophysitism  ;  but 
the  monophysite  "Dionysius"  and  the  mystics  preserved  a  side  of 
the  truth  which  was  in  danger  of  being  lost  .  ...      id, 

Dionysian  mysticism,  however,  aimed  at  dispensing  at  last  with  the 

Divine-Human  Mediator.     Fallacy  of  this  aspiration  .  .         .       77 

German  mysticism  rested  mainly  on  the  Incarnation,  interpreted  as 
a  law  of  the  spiritual  life  .  .  ...      80 

Reaction  against  this  type  of  theology  after  the  Reformation.  Deistic 
modes  of  thought  were  prevalent,  and  made  a  consistent  Christology 
impossible        .  .  .  .  ...       81 

The  problem  is  how  to  conceive  of  the  Godhead  and  Manhood  as  not 
mutually  exclusive  terms,  while  yet  neither  is  allowed  to  curtail  the 
other.  Christianity  asserts,  without  explaining,  the  fact  of  the  unio 
mystica,  which  is  the  ideal  consummation  of  the  religious  life  .         .      id. 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  dogmatic  theology  consists  largely  of 
historical  propositions.  What  is  the  place  of  dogma  in  religious 
life  and  thought  ?  .  .  .  ...       83 

Religious  life  moves  normally  in  an  atmosphere  neither  of  pure 
thought  nor  of  conscious  myth  ;  it  seeks  symbols  which  shall  be 
vitally  connected  with  the  things  symbolised  .  .         .       84 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  religious  symbols  are  sometimes  manufactured 
in  good  faith  and  believed  as  historical  truths  .  .         .       85 

But  the  vitality  of  belief  in  this  mode  of  revelation  is  a  hard  fact, 

and  the  connexion  of  ideas  which  it  proves  must  be  accounted  for     .      86 

There  are  signs  that  the  doctrines  about  the  Person  of  Christ  are  losing 

some  of  their  power  as  religious  symbols.     Why  is  this  ?  .         .       87 

The  long-standing  secularisation  of  dogma  by  using  it  as  the  test  of 
Church  membership  is  one  cause ;  another  is  the  conflict  between 
science  and  tradition  on  the  question  of  miracles  .  .        .      id. 


I 


SYNOPSIS  6i 

Page 

There  is  at  present  no  consensus  of  opinion  as  to  whether  miracles  are 
to  be  expected  as  part  of  a  Divine  revelation,  or  not.  Both 
views  are  philosophically  tenable,  and  neither  is  inconsistent  with, 
full  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  .  .  .         .       89 

History  as  history  is  not  the  business  of  religion,  which  always  speaks 
in  the  present  tense.  The  truth  which  the  miracles  are  intended  to 
support  is  that  there  was  an  unique  Divine  Incarnation  in  the  Person 
of  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  ...       90 

Is  this  certain  ?  The  hypothesis  of  a  diffused  revelation,  which  found 
its  focus  in  the  idealised  Christ,  cannot  be  absolutely  disproved  by 
historical  evidence.  But  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  conscious- 
ness strongly  supports  the  traditional  belief   .  .  .         .       91 

Is  this  belief  still  an  integral  part  of  Christianity?  It  is;  for  (i)  If 
Christ  did  not  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  an  unique  sense, 
the  Gospels  are  too  untrustworthy  to  build  anything  upon  them ; 
(2)  there  is  one  Divine  attribute — sinlessness — which  Christianity 
can  never  surrender ;  (3)  the  voluntary  humiliation  of  the  Lord  of 
all  is  an  integral  doctrine ;  (4)  the  most  distinctive  parts  of  His 
teaching  are  bound  up  with  the  personal  claim  .  •         •       95 

**But,"  it  may  be  objected,  "the  life  of  an  individual  is  an  impossible 
form  for  a  Divine  Incarnation."  The  answer  is  (i)  Christ  never 
claimed  to  be  the  Absolute  ;  (2)  the  moral  qualities  which  require  a 
personal  life  are  higher  and  more  Divine  than  omnipresence  and 
omnipotence.  In  the  love  of  Christ  we  are  right  to  find  "all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily "      .  .  .  .         .       99 

Another  objection,  often  raised  by  evolutionists,  is  that  the  perfect  man 
could  not  have  been  born  2,000  years  ago.  But  (i)  several  arts 
culminated  long  ago ;  (2)  the  Incarnation  was  not  catastrophic,  but 
was  long  prepared  for  ;  (3)  Christianity  is  itself  a  principle  of  growth  ; 
it  marked  the  beginning  of  a  new  era,  and  did  not  preclude  further 
progress.  The  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  exhibit  a  Christophany 
in  humanity  itself  .  .  .  .  .         .     loi 

Those  who  try  to  follow  Christ  without  believing  in  His  Divinity  have 
an  austere  and  difficult  religion,  but  not  an  ignoble  one.  Their 
Christianity  is  mutilated,  but  they  are  not  infidels.  In  many  cases 
their  mistake  arises  from  attributing  too  much  importance  to  his- 
torical testimony,  and  too  little  to  religious  experience  .  .        .     102 

DURING  a  philosophical  discussion  not  long  ago 
one  of  the  speakers  observed,  "  I  could  not  worship 
what  is  part  of  myself,"  to  which  the  other  replied,  "  And 
I  could  not  worship  what  is  not  part  of  myself."  The 
contradiction  exhibits  in  epigrammatic  form  one  of  those 
insoluble  but  fruitful  antinomies  which  meet  us  whenever 
we  try  to  penetrate  to  the  reality  of  things.  They  are 
insoluble,  because  they  are  rooted  in   the  psychological 


62  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

conditions  of  our  life  here ;  they  are  fruitful,  because  they 
help  us  to  understand  those  conditions.  A  human  being 
knows  himself  to  be  one  person,  and  yet  he  may  describe 
himself  with  equal  truth  as  a  little  lower  than  the  angels 
and  as  a  little  higher  than  the  brutes.  We  can  partly 
apprehend  and  attach  ourselves  to  ideas  which  belong 
to  a  higher  order  than  space  and  time,  and  yet  our 
whole  existence  is  dependent  on  the  most  accidental  and 
fugitive  physical  conditions.  How,  then,  are  we  to 
interpret  our  human  personality?  In  terms  of  what  it 
sprang  from,  or  in  terms  of  what  we  picture  to  ourselves 
as  its  ideal  consummation  ?  Or  in  neither  of  these  ways, 
but  as  a  process  which  has  no  existence  except  in  its 
evolving  states  ?  We  know  that  we  are  not  what  we 
would  be ;  we  think  that  we  are  not  what  we  should 
be :  is  this  a  reason  for  believing  that  we  are,  or  will 
be,  other  than  we  now  appear?  And  how  are  we  to 
interpret  the  world,  which  is  external  to  us,  and  yet 
not  external,  since  our  images  of  it  only  come  to  us 
through  our  senses?  It  is  a  world  which  is  evidently 
governed  by  fixed  laws,  laws  which  are  perhaps  more 
real  than  anything  else  that  touches  us ;  but  yet  these 
laws  are  only  known  to  us  as  operative  in  particular 
instances,  in  events  which  happen  and  cease  to  be ;  and 
how  does  that  which  was  and  is  not  differ  from  that 
which  never  was  ?  Moreover,  these  laws  seem  to  us  to 
be  partly  moral  and  partly  unmoral :  what  do  they  reveal 
to  us  about  the  ruling  principle  of  the  universe?  Are 
we  justified  in  assuming  that  it  is  the  same  or  analogous 
to  that  which  we  feel  to  be  the  master-principle  of  human 
life — to  that  inner  light  or  higher  reason  which  guides 
us  so  far  as  we  follow  our  true  nature?  If  we  assume 
this,  we  are  declaring  that  "  the  mind  of  man  is  the  throne 
of  the  Godhead,"  as  was  said  long  ago.  Then  we  have  to 
face  the  charge  that  we  are  making  our  God  in  our  own 


GOD   IN   THE  WORLD  63 

image.  We  are  reminded  that  the  gods  of  the  negroes 
have  black  faces ;  we  recall  the  scoff  of  Xenophanes,  that 
oxen  or  lions  would  certainly  worship  a  great  ox  or  a 
great  lion,  and  that  of  Spinoza,  that  if  a  triangle  could 
make  a  creed,  he  would  assert  that  God  is  "  eminently 
triangular."  But  if  we  are  not  to  worship  the  ideal  man, 
what  are  we  to  worship  ?  Impersonal  law,  or  blind  mechan- 
ism, does  not  include  the  noblest  part  of  the  universe ;  it 
does  not  include  us,  the  worshippers.  And  the  unknowable 
God,  the  Absolute,  the  Monad,  must  for  ever  escape  us. 
We  hold  forth  our  hands  to  infinity,  and  grasp  only  zero. 
Neither  pure  thought  nor  pure  science  can  provide  us 
with  an  object  of  worship.  If  there  is  no  uniting 
principle,  the  two  must  remain  for  ever  sundered,  and 
all  hope  of  bringing  our  lives  into  rational  order  must 
be  abandoned. 

Reasonable  beings  cannot  really  believe  in  an  irrational 
world  ;  and  so  the  general  sense  of  mankind,  in  the 
higher  races  at  least,  has  decided  that  we  must  assume 
Mind  or  Reason  to  be  the  ruling  principle  of  the 
universe.  The  human  spirit  as  it  ought  to  be  is  the 
World -Spirit  in  little.  What  is  good  and  evil  to  us  is 
good  and  evil  to  Him.  The  cosmic  process  is  a  moment 
or  phase  of  His  life,  even  as  our  lives  here  are  a  moment 
or  phase  of  our  existence  as  eternal  spirits.  The  laws 
under  which  we  live  are  His  laws,  in  that  He  brought 
the  world  into  being ;  they  are  the  laws  to  which  He 
subjects  Himself,  in  that  He  is  living  a  life  in  the  life 
of  the  universe.  The  operation  of  these  laws  has  and 
must  have  a  negative  as  well  as  a  positive  aspect — as 
resistance  and  not  only  as  energy.  Under  this  aspect 
they  appear  as  obstacles  which  retard  the  consummation 
of  the  Divine  plan,  and  therefore  as  evil.  Without  them 
the  moral  energy  of  the  universe  would  destroy  the 
conditions  of  its  own  existence  by  completing  its  work 


64  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

in  a  moment  For  us,  however,  salvation  and  happiness 
consist  in  identifying  ourselves  with  the  work  of  the 
Word  of  God  in  the  world,  and  not  with  the  forces, 
whatever  they  may  be,  which  impede  and  resist  it.  Our 
true  life,  like  His,  is  all  good.  We  are  privileged  to  be 
the  chief  instruments  by  which  He  carries  out  His 
purposes  on  this  planet ;  or,  at  any  rate,  we  are  the 
instruments  by  which  He  purposes  to  achieve  on  this 
planet  one  great  scheme — the  expression  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  so  far  as  is  possible,  under  the  forms  of  space 
and  time.  What  theology  calls  the  Incarnation — i.e.  not 
the  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh,  but  the  taking 
of  the  manhood  into  God — is,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
the  supreme  object  of  creation.  Taking  as  our  guide  the 
unique  historical  Incarnation  in  the  past,  we  may  say 
that  the  complete  revelation  to  man  of  God's  purposes 
concerning  man,  and  the  complete  subordination  of  the 
human  will  to  the  Divine  Will,  so  that  it  may  act 
unswervingly  in  carrying  out  those  purposes,  are  what 
constitutes  union  between  the  human  and  Divine  natures, 
and  that  the  realisation  of  this  union  in  mankind,  as  it 
was  once  realised  in  Christ,  is  the  far-off  Divine  event 
towards  which  the  whole  creation  moves.  The  Incarna- 
tion of  the  Word  of  God  is  not  only  an  event  in  the 
past;  it  is  the  ideal  which  the  world  at  large  is  striving 
to  realise,  and  which  is  also,  in  a  sense,  the  meaning 
of  salvation  for  each  one  of  us.  It  is  the  great  "ought- 
to-be" —  that  supreme  category  of  the  mind,  which 
instinctively  postulates  the  complement  of  what  is  only 
given  in  part ;  that  hope  to  which  faith  gives  substance, 
and  of  which  faith  speaks,  with  equal  propriety,  now  in 
the  present  and  now  in  the  future  tense. 

Both  as  individuals  and  as  members  of  the  human 
family,  we  stand  in  the  middle  of  a  process  of  enlighten- 
ment or  education.     We  are  or  should  be  learning  more 


OF   ! 


OF 

/FOR' 


Uf^lVER 

THE  INCARNATION  AND  WORLD-PLAN    65 

and  more  on  these  high  matters  as  we  grow  older ;  but 
we  can  anticipate  neither  the  lessons  of  old  age  nor  those 
which  are  reserved  for  the  riper  maturity  of  humanity. 
We  can,  however,  learn  something  by  looking  back  and 
tracing  the  gradual  revelation  of  the  Eternal  Word.  He 
was  in  the  world,  as  St.  John  says,  from  the  beginning. 
Not  only  in  the  secret  counsels  of  God  was  the  Lamb 
"  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world " ;  not  only  were 
we  "  chosen  in  Him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  " ; 
but  in  the  events  of  history  we  are  taught  to  recognise 
His  presence ;  even  as  St.  Paul  says  that  He  was  the  Rock 
that  followed  the  Israelites  in  their  journey  through  the 
wilderness.  Nor  must  we  suppose  that  it  was  only  the 
chosen  people  whom  He  visited  and  taught.  The  Christian 
Apologists  of  the  second  century  were  not  afraid  to  admit 
that  those  Greeks  who,  like  Heraclitus  and  Socrates,  lived 
in  harmony  with  the  Divine  Logos,  were  Christians  before 
Christ.  There  is  an  old  English  verse  which  expresses 
the  same  idea  : — 

"  Many  man  for  Cristes  love 
Was  martired  in  Romayne, 
Er  any  Cristendom  was  knowe  there, 
Or  any  cros  honoured." 

These  and  similar  statements,  which  rather  surprise  us 
by  their  generous  recognition  of  Pagan  virtue,  should  be 
accepted  by  us  without  qualification.  They  furnish  an 
answer  to  a  difficulty  which  has  often  been  felt  about 
the  Catholic  Church ;  namely,  that  it  manifestly  absorbed 
many  elements  which  were  Pagan,  that  is  to  say  non- 
Jewish,  in  their  origin.  If  we  may  trace  the  "mind  of 
Christ "  as  already  influencing  the  philosophy  of  Heraclitus 
and  Socrates  (to  mention  the  two  names  given  by  Justin^), 
and  the  purer  and  more  elevated  rites  of  Greek  worship, 
we  shall  not  be  troubled  at  the  transit  of  Christianity  from 

1  ApoL^  i.  46. 


e^  THE   PERSON  OF   CHRIST 

"a  world  of  Syrian  peasants"  to  "a  world  of  Greek 
philosophers.  ^ 

The  moral  preparation  for  Christ  seems  to  have  been 
mainly  committed  to  the  Hebrews,  the  intellectual  to  the 
Greeks,  and  the  political  to  the  Romans.  The  Hebrews 
learned  very  early,  and  never  forgot,  the  two  most  im- 
portant maxims  of  moral  education — to  reverence  God, 
and  to  reverence  their  own  bodies.  Their  religion,  alone 
among  the  primitive  religions  of  the  world,  remained  free 
from  degrading  myths  and  untainted  by  any  association 
with  sensuality.  The  insurmountable  barrier  which  they 
placed  between  God  and  man  saved  them  from  these 
ruinous  errors,  and  also  barred  the  way  to  those  over-facile 
reconciliations  which  only  retard  the  true  solution.  An- 
ticipations of  the  Incarnation  doctrine  are  visible  in  the 
prophetic  visions  of  an  ideal  representative  of  the  nation, 
in  the  wisdom-literature,  with  its  personifications  of  the 
Wisdom,  the  Word,  the  Power,  or  the  Glory  of  Jehovah, 
and  in  the  hopes  of  a  coming  Messiah.  Moreover,  their 
priestly  and  sacrificial  system,  as  we  can  now  see,  pointed 
forward  to  the  only  sacrifice  which  can  really  atone  God 
and  man — namely,  the  self-oblation  of  a  Divine-Human 
Mediator,  who,  as  representative  of  the  race,  can  offer  not 
merely  Himself  for  us,  but  us  in  and  with  Himself. 

Meanwhile  the  Greeks  were  working  out  their  part  of 
the  problem  in  a  different  and  not  less  characteristic  way. 
Their  sense  of  estrangement  from  God  was  less  deep  than 
that  of  the  Hebrews,  and  therefore  their  ideas  of  recon- 
ciliation were  shallow  and  inadequate.  Deification  for 
them  was  an  easy  process,  so  easy  that  their  demigods 
could  not  be  redeemers.  And  yet  their  legends  of 
Heracles,  the  son  of  the  father  of  the  gods  and  a  human 
mother,  who  when  on  earth  went  about  righting  wrongs, 
and  after  labouring  and  suffering  for  mankind  ascended 

^  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  i. 


DIVINE-HUMAN   REDEEMERS  67 

to  heaven  from  the  pyre  on  Oeta;  and  of  Prometheus, 
who  was  crucified  for  revealing  to  mankind  the  arts  and 
sciences  which  dignify  and  bless  their  lives,  suggest  a 
parallel  which  is  too  obvious  to  need  exposition.  Paren- 
thetically we  may  add  that  other  mythologies  have 
adumbrated  the  same  truths.  In  India  the  Brahmans 
could  point  to  the  various  avatars  of  Vishnu,  in  which 
they  beheld  not  mere  theophanies,  but  "the  presence,  at 
once  mystical  and  real,  of  the  Supreme  Being  in  a  human 
individual,  who  is  at  once  and  the  same  time  true  God 
and  true  man  ;  and  this  intimate  union  of  the  two  natures 
is  represented  as  continuing  after  the  death  of  the  in- 
dividual in  whom  it  took  place." ^  The  Persians  also  looked 
for  a  coming  Saviour,  who  was  to  be  born  of  a  virgin 
mother,  conceived  by  the  holy  spirit  of  Zarathustra  three 
thousand  years  after  the  revelation  of  that  prophet.  So 
deeply  rooted  in  the  human  breast  is  the  instinct  that 
none  can  bring  to  man  the  salvation  which  he  needs,  except 
one  who  is  both  God  and  Man.  But  the  main  contribution 
of  the  Greeks  was  conveyed  not  through  mythology,  but 
through  philosophy.  From  the  early  dawn  of  speculation 
in  Thales,  who  taught  that  "  Intelligence  (Noi7?)  is  the  God 
of  the  world,  which  is  animated  throughout  and  full  of 
deity,"  we  find  a  recognition  that  the  inner  light,  Reason 
in  its  highest  meaning,  is  not  only  the  gift  of  God,  but 
His  actual  presence.  Heraclitus  speaks  of  it  as  "common" 
to  all  alike,  the  light  that  lighteth  every  man,  and 
laments  that  "the  majority"  wilfully  follow  their  own 
devices  instead  of  obeying  it.  The  Divine  Logos  is 
breathed  into  us,  he  says :  it  is  Reason,  Destiny,  and 
Justice  at  once,  the  instrument  of  creation,  and  the  swiftest 
and  subtlest  of  all  spirits.  Plato,  and  still  more  the  Stoics, 
further  develop  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  as  the  ruling 
principle  both  in  the  universe  and   in   the   human   soul, 

^  Barth,  Religions  of  hidiaj  p.  170. 


68  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

and  as  the  bond  of  union  between  God  and  man.  St. 
Augustine  was  able  to  find  very  much  of  Christian  theology 
in  the  somewhat  eclectic  Platonism  of  his  day ;  only  "  the 
Word  made  flesh — that  found  I  not  among  them." 

The  course  of  history  brought  it  about  that  a  fusion 
between  the  Greek  and  Jewish  philosophies  of  religion 
took  place  at  the  point  where  Greek  and  Jew  came 
most  in  contact  with  each  other,  namely,  at  Alexandria. 
The  "  Word "  or  "  Words "  of  God  were  easily  identified 
with  the  Stoical  "  Logoi "  or  the  Platonic  "  Ideas."  In  the 
Alexandrian  Jew  Philo  we  have  a  Logos-doctrine  which, 
though  defective  from  the  Christian  point  of  view,  antici- 
pates St.  John  to  a  very  striking  extent.  He  follows  the 
Greeks  in  taking  the  notion  of  Being  as  his  starting-point, 
and  defines  God  as  "the  really  existing."  But  though 
he  will  not  (like  the  Platonists)  call  God  superessential, 
he  insists  that  He  is  "  without  qualities,"  and  unapproach- 
able in  the  absolute  "simplicity"  of  His  nature.  Such  a 
Being  can  enter  into  no  direct  relations  with  the  world ; 
and  Philo  accordingly  postulates  "  a  second  God,  who  is 
His  Word,"  and  who  is  the  real  Creator  of  the  universe. 
This  "  second  God "  he  identifies  with  the  intelligible 
world,  the  archetypal  universe,  of  the  Platonists,  and  calls 
the  Logos  "the  idea  of  ideas,"  while  the  phenomenal 
world  is  figuratively  described  as  "the  younger  Son  of 
God."  The  Logos  of  Philo  is  thus  not  only  the  Agent 
in  Creation,  but  is  Himself  a  cosmical  principle,  the 
archetype  and  real  life  of  the  universe.  With  the  human 
spirit  the  Logos  has  the  closest  relations,  operating  in  man 
as  the  higher  reason.  And  yet  Philo's  Logos  is  not  an 
hypostasis  of  the  Deity.  He  is  not  personal,  and  may 
equally  well  be  spoken  of  in  the  plural  number.  He  is 
not  so  much  the  "  Word  "  as  the  "  Mind  and  Will "  i  of 
God,  and  may  be  identified  with  Plato's  "  Mind  "  (Noi^?). 
^  Platonism  makes  no  distinction  between  Reason  and  Will. 


PHILO   AND   THE   CHURCH  69 

An  incarnation  of  such  a  being  is  unthinkable,^  and  Philo 
never  attempts  to  connect  him  with  the  Messianic  hopes 
of  his  people.  And  thus,  though  he  is  the  best  representa- 
tive of  the  Jewish-Greek  philosophy  of  the  first  century, 
in  its  efforts  to  find,  by  blending  the  religious  speculations 
of  the  two  nations,  a  mediator  between  God  and  man, 
he  cannot  be  considered  the  true  founder  of  that  Christian 
Logos-doctrine  which  framed  our  creeds,  and  still  governs 
the  best  thought  of  Christendom. 

This  message  of  salvation  was  conveyed  in  the  Christian 
revelation,  which  has  its  centre  in  the  Incarnation.  The 
society  which  Christ  founded  did  not  at  first  apprehend 
all  the  truth  about  His  Person ;  but  it  was  guided  by 
a  kind  of  instinct  (rightly  attributed  to  the  indwelling 
Spirit  whom  the  Father  sent  in  Christ's  name),  which 
enabled  it  to  discriminate  as  questions  arose,  and  to  bar, 
one  after  another,  all  the  false  paths  which  lay  open  on 
either  hand.  In  doing  this  the  Church  claimed,  with 
perfect  justice,  that  she  was  only  interpreting  the  original 
revelation,  not  adding  anything  new  to  it.  The  theologian 
who  first  arrived  at  the  accurate  enunciation  of  a  dogma 
was  said  "to  interpret  the  mystical  tradition  of  the 
Church."  It  is  plain  from  the  documents  that  this  is 
true.  Most  of  the  work  of  the  dogmatists  was  devoted 
to  recovering  and  vitalising  truths  which  we  can  find  easily 
enough  in  the  New  Testament,  but  which  were  imperfectly 
understood  in  the  sub-Apostolic  period.  The  impatience 
of  dogmatic  controversy  which  is  characteristic  of  the 
present  age  is  largely  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  its 
object.  If  it  were  generally  realised  that  the  object  of 
the  debates  which  produced  the  Athanasian  creed  was 
mainly  to  arrive  at  a  clear  understanding  of  the  meaning 

^  6^/x.ts  oxiK  ea-TL  Ovrjrbu  adavdri^  crvvoiKrj(raL,  he  says  plainly.  Nevertheless, 
he  admits  Logophanies  or  Theophanies  in  human  shape,  and  would  not  have 
been  offended  by  the  statement  6  \6yos  i(f)av€pd)d7)  iu  aapKl.  The  difference 
between  Philo's  Logos  and  St.  John's  is  sometimes  exaggerated. 


70  THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

of  the  concepts  "  God "  and  "  Man "  and  the  actual 
relation  between  them,  and  that  that  so-called  creed 
was  an  attempt  to  summarise  the  results  which  Christian 
philosophy  believed  itself  to  have  established  up  to  that 
time,  it  would  be  allowed  to  take  its  true  place  as  a 
historical  document  of  the  highest  interest,  which,  though 
perhaps  unsuitable  as  a  public  confession  of  faith  for 
mixed  congregations,  deserves  the  respect  and  attention 
of  all  who  value  exact  thought  on  the  highest  subjects.  If 
religious  philosophy  were  an  attempt  to  solve  purely 
intellectual  puzzles,  this  impatience  of  metaphysics  might 
be  excusable  in  view  of  the  scanty  harvest  of  results  to 
which  pure  philosophy  can  point.  But  in  reality  theo- 
logical speculation  has  always  maintained  a  close  con- 
nexion with  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  thinkers  and 
their  contemporaries.  The  facts  which  supplied  the  frame- 
work of  Christian  dogma  were  not  only  the  events  which 
occurred  in  Judaea  in  the  reigns  of  Augustus  and  Tiberius  ; 
they  were  also  the  experiences,  repeated  in  each  generation, 
of  the  human  soul  in  its  conflicts  with  sin,  its  sufferings, 
its  death  unto  sin,  and  its  new  life  unto  righteousness. 
Consciously  or  unconsciously,  the  ultimate  appeal  has 
always  been  to  conscience  and  experience ;  and  I  believe 
that  a  careful  investigation  of  the  psychological  basis 
of  dogmas,  particularly  those  about  the  Person  of  Christ, 
would  do  much  to  vitalise  and  render  intelligible  old 
controversies,  which  we  often  ignorantly  suppose  to  have 
been  merely  barren  logomachies. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  was  at  first  of 
the  nature  of  a  splendid  intuition.  The  problems  which 
it  solved  were  more  manifest  than  those  which  it  raised. 
The  task  of  theology  and  of  philosophy,  in  the  generations 
which  followed,  was  to  determine  what  readjustments  of 
the  two  concepts,  "  God  "  and  "  Man,"  were  made  necessary 
by  the  new  revelation. 


CHRISTOLOGICAL   DOCTRINE  71 

I  need  hardly  say  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  give 
even  the  barest  sketch  of  the  history  of  Christological 
dogma  within  the  limits  of  a  short  essay.  A  few  generali- 
sations only  can  be  included. 

It  has  been  said  ^  that  the  Greek  Church,  in  the  early 
centuries  when  she  was  in  her  prime,  worshipped  Christ 
mainly  as  the  Divine  Prophet,  who  has  revealed  to  us  the 
life-giving  mysteries  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  To  the 
Roman  Church  He  was  the  King^  the  supreme  Head  of 
a  great  hierarchy,  whose  Gospel  was  a  new  law,  and 
obedience  to  whose  officers  was  the  condition  of  member- 
ship of  His  Kingdom.  Protestantism  emphasised  the  third 
of  His  offices.  To  it  Christ  was  the  great  High  Priest, 
the  Atoner  and  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  Thus 
the  three  chief  forms  or  branches  of  Christendom  have 
illustrated  respectively  the  Wisdom,  the  Power,  and  the 
Love  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Again,  for  many  centuries  the  Divine  element  in  our 
Lord's  Person  was  allowed  to  predominate  too  much  over 
the  human.  In  the  Catholic  Middle  Ages  the  idea  of  the 
Church  drove  the  figure  of  Christ  into  the  background. 
Except  in  the  Eucharist,  when  He  was  said  to  be  "  made  " 
{confectus)  and  distributed  by  the  priest.  He  was  considered 
to  stand  in  almost  deistic  aloofness  from  the  Christian 
body,  and  was  mainly  thought  of  as  the  future  Judge. 
The  mythical  figures  of  the  "  Queen  of  Heaven  "  and  the 
other  saints  were  decked  out  as  a  kind  of  substitute.  On 
the  other  hand,  during  the  two  centuries  after  the  Reforma- 
tion the  humanity  of  Christ  was  over-emphasised  under 
the  influence  of  forensic  theories  of  the  atonement,  which 
presented  the  dualism  of  nature  and  grace  in  a  still  harsher 
form  than  it  had  yet  exhibited.  The  idealistic  philosophy 
of  the  last  century  and  a  half  has,  we  may  hope,  brought 
back  Christology  to  its  true  path  by  showing  us  how  the 

^  By  Dorner,  in  his  well-known  work  on  the  Person  of  Christ. 


72  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

Divine  and  human  may  be  united  without  confusion  and 
distinguished  without  separation. 

However,  the  first  steps  in  the  evolution  of  doctrine 
about  the  Person  of  Christ  are  still  interesting  and  instruc- 
tive, and  a  few  words  about  them  will  not  be  superfluous. 

Among  the  earliest  attempts  at  a  definite  theory  of 
the  Incarnation  were  those  known  as  Adoptianism  and 
Docetism.  The  former  theory  insisted  on  the  real  exalta- 
tion of  Christ  as  a  reward  for  His  perfect  obedience  and 
goodness.  Jesus  was  the  man  chosen  by  God  as  the 
habitation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  after  being  proved,  was 
invested  with  the  Lordship  of  creation  by  Divine  decree. 
This  theology,  which  is  to  some  extent  countenanced  by 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  was  at  one  time  widely  spread, 
as  is  shown  by  the  half-canonical  authority  which  was 
ascribed  to  the  Shepherd.  Its  divergence  from  the  orthodox 
Christology  may  be  most  briefly  stated  in  the  formula  that 
it  made  Jesus  Son  of  God  by  decree  (/cara  yvcojui.t]v),  and 
not  by  nature  (Kara  (pvaiv). 

Docetism  is  pneumatic  or  spiritual  Christianity,  based  on 
Gnostic  doctrines  as  to  the  unreality  of  the  phenomenal 
world.  Christ,  according  to  this  view,  is  the  "  Godhead 
veiled  in  flesh."  The  doctrine  of  the  two  natures  had 
not,  at  this  time,  been  formulated,  and  Docetism  made 
the  human  nature  only  an  appearance  of  the  Divine. 
The  usual  opinion  was  that  God  was  "  made  manifest 
in  the  flesh"  for  the  instruction  of  mankind,  who  could 
not  come  into  immediate  contact  with  God  in  any  other 
way.  The  idea  of  Incarnation  was  lost  in  that  oi  Revela- 
tion, This  theory  is  obviously  more  in  accordance  with 
Greek  notions  than  Adoptianism.  It  emphasised  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ  "in  the  form  of  God,"  and  made  it 
easy  to  identify  Him  with  the  "  Beginning  of  the  Creation 
of  God,"  that  is  with  the  principle  of  life  in  the  universe. 
It  also  regarded  His  assumption  of  flesh  as  in  itself  a 


THE   LOGOS-THEOLOGY  73 

humiliation,  a  notion  quite  foreign  to  Jewish  thought. 
The  latter,  however,  asserted  itself  victoriously  against 
the  attempts  to  get  rid  of  the  "  resurrection  of  the  flesh  " 
as  an  article  in  the  Christian  creed,  and  so  preserved 
the  Johannine  Logos-theology,  in  which  the  reality  of  the 
Incarnation  is  as  much  insisted  on  as  the  all-pervading 
power  of  the  Son  as  the  life  and  light  of  the  world. 

This  Logos-theology,  which  was  laid  down  in  the  later 
Pauline  epistles  and  the  fourth  gospel,  and  developed  by 
the  Apologists  of  the  second  century  and  the  Christian 
Platonists  of  the  third,  may  be  summed  up  in  the  follow- 
ing statements  of  doctrine.  God  the  Father  dwells  in  the 
light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto.  God  the  Son 
is  the  First  Principle  (apxh)  '^^  relation  to  the  creatures; 
He  is  the  World-Spirit  and  World-Principle — the  thought, 
word,  and  deed  of  God.  The  ideal  world,  of  which  the 
visible  world  is  an  appearance,  is  contained  in  the  Logos. 
But  the  visible  world  is  material  and  manifold,  while  the 
Logos  is  spiritual  and  one.  The  Son  was,  in  the  words 
of  the  Nicene  Creed,  "begotten  before  all  worlds,"  that 
is.  He  did  not  attain  a  hypostasis  only  in  the  act  of 
creation.  But  some  of  the  Christian  Platonists  were  dis- 
posed to  follow  the  Stoics  in  distinguishing  between  the 
Unspoken  Word,  immanent  from  all  eternity  in  the  mind 
of  the  Father  (\6y09  evSidOeTO^),  and  the  world-principle 
(Xoyo?  irpocpopiKog).  This  seems  to  be  the  view  of 
Clement.  The  Son  is  God  by  essence,  not  by  com- 
munication :  He  is  of  the  same  substance  with  the 
Father  (o/uLoova-iog  is  used  by  Clement) ;  "  one  Lord,  one 
from  one,  God  from  God,  impress  and  image  of  the  God- 
head, active  Word  (or  Reason),  wisdom  which  embraces  the 
whole  system  of  the  universe,  power  which  produces  all 
creation,  invisible,  incorruptible,  immortal,  and  eternal."^ 

^  Gregory  Thaumaturgus.  This  creed  sums  up  Origeu's  theology,  as 
Harnack  says,  History  of  Dogma,  vol.  ii.  p.  355. 


74  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

The  generation  of  the  Son  is  a  continual  act,  says  Origen ; 
but  both  he  and  the  other  Platonising  theologians  avoid 
the  technical  word  "emanation"  (tt/oo/^oX))).  The  Son  is 
a  Person,  "the  Wisdom  of  God  substantially  existing," 
not  an  impersonal  force.  Thus,  though  the  Platonism  of 
these  thinkers  pointed  clearly  to  a  subordination  of  the 
Son  to  the  one  **  Fountain  of  Godhead,"  they  strove  to 
avoid  placing  the  second  Person  in  a  category  of  essential 
inferiority. 

The  great  aim  of  the  Christian  Platonists  was  to  bring 
the  Incarnation  into  closest  relation  with  the  cosmic 
process.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  no  Christian  philo- 
sophy can  have  any  value  which  does  not  do  this.  But 
the  attempt  to  express  the  whole  of  Christian  dogma  in 
terms  of  the  Platonic  philosophy  was  not  successful.  It 
is  significant  that  Athanasius  says  to  the  Pagan  philo- 
sophers, "  What  can  you  find  to  object  to  in  our  teaching 
except  our  statement  that  the  Word  was  made  Flesh?" 
It  was  just  this  dogma  which  was  in  danger.  The  doctrine 
of  immanence,  if  allowed  to  take  the  position  of  the  one 
important  truth  of  religion,  attenuates  the  personality  both 
of  God  and  man,  and  debases  the  currency  of  the  word 
"  God."  "  God  became  man  that  man  might  become  God  " 
was  the  favourite  way  of  stating  the  purpose  of  the  Incar- 
nation. In  this  way  the  unique  dignity  of  Christ  suffered, 
and  His  personality  was  almost  lost.  Alexandrian  Plato- 
nism had  not  quite  solved  the  problem  of  the  Person  of 
Christ. 

Arianism  was  nursed  in  the  Antiochene  school  of 
critical  exegesis,  and  was  developed  with  the  aid  of 
Aristotelian  rationalism.  Its  doctrine  was  an  impossible 
combination  of  the  old  Adoptianism  with  a  kind  of 
Neoplatonic  emanation  theory,  which  taught  that  as  God 
cannot  communicate  directly  with  man,  a  "heavenly 
Creature"  was  necessary  as  a  mediator.     Its  Christology 


DOGMATIC   CONTROVERSIES  75 

was  hopeless ;  no  sense  can  be  made  of  the  formula 
6jULoiov(rio^,TO)  Uarpl,  and  their  Christ  could  not  be  more 
than  a  Teacher  and  Example.  The  Catholics  of  the 
fourth  century  were  guided  by  a  true  instinct  in  standing 
out  for  the  test-word  6juloov(tlo9,  but  in  their  recoil  from 
Arianism  they  came  perilously  near  to  Sabellianism — that 
is  to  say,  to  making  the  Son  a  mere  mode  or  phase  of  the 
Father's  activity — and  were  in  some  danger  of  forgetting 
the  Logos-doctrine,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  true 
religious  philosophy.  The  Son  was  more  and  more  severed 
from  the  world -history,  and  almost  identified  with  the 
Absolute.  In  this  way  the  gulf  between  God  and  the 
world,  which  the  Alexandrians  had  tried  to  span,  yawned 
as  widely  as  ever. 

It  seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  many  modern  students  of 
dogma  that  the  Church  took  her  first  false  step  at  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  that  by  condemning  Mono- 
physitism  she  rejected  the  deepest  thought  of  the  Greek 
Fathers.  The  question  can  only  be  argued  out  when  we 
have  arrived  at  an  accurate  conception  of  the  meaning  of 
the  two  terms  "  Nature "  and  "  Person,"  and  how  they 
differ  from  each  other.  But  the  truth  is  that  great  con- 
fusion prevailed  in  the  use  of  the  Greek  words  (pva-i?,  ova- la, 
and  viroarTaa-ig.  The  last  word,  which  in  the  Be  Mundo^  is 
used  for  reality  as  opposed  to  appearance,  is  in  the  Stoical 
writers  identical  with  ovcria,  and  is  so  used  by  Gregory  of 
Nyssa.  But  the  Alexandrians  and  Athanasius  distinguish 
between  them,  and  define  hypostasis  as  "  ovo'la  with  certain 
distinguishing  characteristics."  In  the  fourth  century  0j(rf? 
and  ova-'ia  are  used  as  identical  terms,  and  Cyril  speaks  of 
ixia  (jiva-Ks  rod  Koyov.  The  subject  was  further  compli- 
cated when  theology  became  bilingual,  for  Latin  is  as  weak 
in  metaphysical  as  it  is  strong  in  legal  terminology.  Sub- 
stantia was  used  for  ova-la  and  vTroa-raa-ig,  until  it  became 
^  De  Mundo,  4,  21. 


^e  THE  PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

necessary  to  distinguish  between  them,  when  persona, 
which  is  the  proper  equivalent  of  TrpocrcoTrov,  not  of 
vTrocTacTig,  was  accepted  to  represent  the  latter  word, 
though  TTpoa-wirov  was  regarded  as  Sabellian.  Both 
persona  and  natura  introduced  new  ideas,  connected  with 
law  and  equity,  which  were  foreign  to  the  Greek  words. 
It  would  be  impossible  in  a  short  essay  to  attempt  to 
unravel  this  tangled  web.  The  Catholic  doctrine  was  and  is 
that  there  are  two  natures  in  the  Son  of  God,  the  Divine 
and  the  human,  which  are  joined  together  in  a  third 
term — His  Substance  or  Person.  The  Personality  of  the 
Logos,  as  all-powerful,  is  capable  of  holding  together  the 
two  natures,  however  widely  separated.  The  conception 
is  a  difficult  one,  and  the  difficulty  was  accentuated  when 
out  of  the  embers  of  the  Monophysite  controversy  there 
arose  the  Monothelite.  For  what  is  the  Personality 
apart  from  the  Will?  And  how  could  an  "impersonal 
humanity"  have  a  will  at  all?  Nevertheless,  the  Church 
was  probably  right  in  rejecting  both  Monophysitism  and 
Monothelitism.  If  there  is  an  essential  likeness  between 
the  Divine  and  human — if  man  is  made  in  the  image  of 
God — the  "  perfect  man  "  must  (in  some  sense)  have  a  self- 
existing,  inalienable  individuality — a  "  Nature  " — even  as 
we  predicate  of  God  that  Pie  is  pre-eminently  personal 
and  self-existing.  If  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  was 
incompatible  with  the  existence  of  a  human  nature  in 
Christ,  or  of  His  human  will,  we  must  consider  that  the 
perfect  union  of  man  with  God  consists  in  an  absorption  of 
the  human  nature,  or  of  the  human  will,  into  the  Divine. 
Then  the  process  of  salvation  for  us  too  would  consist  in  a 
progressive  destruction,  not  merely  of  separation,  but  of 
distinctiony  between  man  and  God.  But  this  is  not  the 
Christian  doctrine.  The  ideal  goal  which  we  contemplate 
and  hope  for  is  a  state  in  which  our  nature  and  will  shall 
be  perfect  instruments  of  the  Divine  nature  and  will,  but 


HUMAN   AND   DIVINE  77 

in  which  they  shall  remain  in  a  condition  of  free  subordi- 
nation to  the  Divine — not  abolished  or  absorbed,  so  as 
to  lose  all  possibility  of  communion^  nor  yet  so  separate  as 
to  admit  only  of  an  ethical  harmony.  The  Divine  and 
human  natures,  in  the  beatified  state,  are  to  be  really 
united,  but  yet  to  remain  distinct ;  and  in  saying  that  this 
union  is  perfectly  consummated  in  Christ  we  set  before 
ourselves  an  ideal  goal  — "  the  measure  of  the  stature  of 
the  fulness  of  Christ" — which  safeguards  both  the  im- 
manence and  the  transcendence  of  God.  Here  therefore, 
even  in  that  controversy  which  more  than  all  others  is 
supposed  to  illustrate  the  barren  logomachies  of  dogmatic 
theology,  we  find  that  the  deepest  consciousness  of  the 
human  soul  was  the  guiding  principle,  and  that  the  rulers 
of  the  Church  were  rightly  inspired. 

The  truth  which  was  contained  in  Monophysitism,  and 
which  Western  theology  in  its  reaction  against  it  was 
often  in  danger  of  losing,^  was  that  the  difference  between 
the  Divine  and  human  natures,  immense  as  it  is,  is  not 
absolute.  Man  is  a  partaker  of  the  Divine  nature,  and,  as 
a  member  of  Christ,  is  capable  of  reigning  with  Him  in 
His  glory.  The  true  idea  of  man  is  not  realised  in  the 
first  creation,  but  in  the  second,  in  the  "new  man,"  who 
is  no  longer  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  but  who  "  after 
God  "  {i.e.  in  conformity  with  the  nature  of  God)  has  been 
created  in  righteousness  and  holiness  of  truth  (Eph.  iv. 
17-24).  The  doctrine,  when  rightly  understood,  is  far 
removed  from  arrogant  self-deification.  Though  we  must 
always  feel  that  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth, 
so  are  God's  ways  higher  than  our  ways,  and  His  thoughts 
than  our  thoughts ;  yet  at  the  same  time  we  must  assert 

^  The  doctrine  of  Treptx'^pTyo-ts  (mutual  interchange  of  attributes  between  the 
Divine  and  human  natures)  gave  back  to  the  Easterns  much  of  what  they 
wanted,  and  monophysite  ways  of  thinking  retained  a  footing  in  the  Church 
under  the  authority  of  the  Pseudo-Dionysius,  whose  writings  strongly  in- 
fluenced mediaeval  mysticism. 


78  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

with  equal  insistence  that  God  and  man  are  even  now 
reconciled.  Religion  only  lives  in  this  radical  antithesis, 
and  is  in  danger  of  death  whenever  either  the  infinite 
littleness  or  the  infinite  greatness  of  human  nature  is  for- 
gotten. The  preservation  in  Christianity  of  this  other  side 
of  the  truth,  which  was  in  some  peril  after  the  defeat  of 
Monophysitism,  was  mainly  due  to  the  Mystics.  The 
father  of  Catholic  mysticism,  "  Dionysius,"  was  unquestion- 
ably a  monophysite,  whose  beliefs  as  to  the  world  of 
matter  led  him  to  take  a  half-docetic  view  of  our  Lord's 
humanity.  This  was  no  solution  of  the  problem,  and 
pointed  back  to  the  Christological  speculations  of  the 
second  century.  His  imitator,  Maximus,  in  his  recoil 
from  the  Monophysitism  which  he  felt  to  be  a  danger  to 
himself,  developed  a  theory  of  symbolism  which  gave  the 
visible  world  more  reality.  With  him  a  dim,  religious 
light  takes  the  place  of  the  "Divine  darkness"  of  Dionysius. 
Duality,  in  his  system,  is  a  primary  condition  of  true 
unity ;  the  world  is  a  symbol  of  God,  and  God  (one  might 
almost  say)  is  a  symbol  of  the  world.  "  Sensuous 
knowledge,"  he  says,  "is  symbolical  knowledge  of  nou- 
menal  truth."  It  is  the  perfect  work  of  love  to  bring  about 
an  interchange  of  qualities.  A  true  "  marriage  "  between 
God  and  man  is  the  necessary  end  of  the  ascending 
and  descending  lines  of  approach.  The  advent  of  the 
historical  Christ  he  regards  as  only  the  climax  of  many 
earlier  and  partial  incarnations.  Like  William  Law,  he 
held  that  "  the  eternal  Word  or  Son  of  God  did  not  then 
first  begin  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world  when  He  was 
born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judaea."  The  Logos  is  continually 
becoming  flesh  in  various  ways.  At  the  same  time 
Maximus  holds  that  the  whole  beneficial  action  of  symbols 
lies  in  gradually  destroying  themselves^  and  he  does  not 
except  the  contemplation  of  Christ  after  the  flesh  from 
this  universal  law.     We  must  pass  through  the  manifold 


THE   EARLIER   MYSTICS  79 

to  the  monad,  he  says.  Our  mind  first  attaches  itself, 
not  to  the  naked  Logos,  but  to  the  Word  Incarnate.  But 
gradually,  as  we  advance  through  the  Spirit,  we  "get  rid 
of  the  husk  of  language  (the  literal  meaning)  by  more 
refined  contemplations,  we  are  united  purely  with  the  pure 
Christ,  so  far  as  is  possible  to  men,  and  are  able  to  say 
with  St.  Paul  that  we  know  no  more  after  the  flesh."  In 
this  passage  we  have  marked  out  for  us  the  road  which 
speculative  mysticism  generally  tends  to  follow.  It  is  a 
road  which  takes  us  back  towards  the  dreamy  idealism  of 
Asiatic  thought.  It  rests  on  a  half  truth,  an  abstract  view 
of  reality.  It  assumes  that  knowledge  which  is  immediate 
must  be  higher  than  knowledge  which  is  mediated  through 
something  else,  and  in  the  last  resort  hopes  to  dispense 
even  with  our  Divine-Human  Mediator.  This  is,  I  say, 
a  half  truth  or  more  than  a  half  truth.  Our  Lord  never 
claimed  to  be  the  Absolute :  He  is  the  Way,  not  the  goal ; 
the  ultimate  limit  of  religion  is  that  indicated  by  St.  Paul, 
"God  shall  be  all  in  all."  The  chief  error  of  mediaeval 
mysticism  is  that  it  concentrated  all  its  thought  upon  this 
ideal  goal,  and  regarded  the  process  which  leads  thither 
as  of  no  actual  value.  The  return  to  God  was  envisaged 
as  a  return  from  the  unreal  to  the  real,  and  in  such  a 
journey  the  shortest  road  is  obviously  the  best.  But 
philosophy  has  now  proved  that  we  cannot  annihilate  the 
process  without  also  annihilating  the  goal.  The  God  of 
the  mystic  who  travels  by  the  via  negativa,  casting  away 
all  symbols  and  all  attributes  of  the  Deity  as  so  many 
veils  which  hide  His  face,  is  an  empty  Infinite.  There  is 
also  another  consideration  which  must  make  us  hesitate 
to  accept  Maximus'  account  of  the  normal  progress  of  the 
spiritual  life.  Experience  shows  that  intense  devotion, 
so  far  from  blurring  the  outlines  of  the  human  Christ, 
revivifies  and  illuminates  His  image  to  the  mind.  This 
is,  I  think,  an  indication  that   the  Incarnation  is  much 


8o  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

more  than  the  husk  of  a  higher  truth ;  that  it  is  a  symbol 
which  has  an  integral  connexion  with  the  thing  symbol- 
ised, and  which,  as  springing  from  the  constitution  of  the 
human  mind,  which  is  itself  based  in  the  primal  ground 
of  all  being,  might  claim  objective  truth  even  in  the 
absence  of  external  evidence. 

The  influence  of  Dionysius  and  Maximus  throughout 
the  Middle  Ages  was  enormous ;  but  the  Latin  Church 
characteristically  developed  that  part  of  their  system 
which  rests  on  the  celestial  and  terrestrial  hierarchies,  and 
exalted  the  latter  till  it  usurped  the  place  of  the  Incarnate 
Word,  while  devout  spirits  were  allowed  to  regain  for  them- 
selves, in  mystical  contemplation,  the  Christ  as  the  Lover 
of  their  souls.  But  the  German  speculative  mystics  rested 
their  whole  religion  on  the  Incarnation,  which  they  in- 
terpreted as  an  universal  law  of  the  spiritual  life,  the 
joyful  message  of  salvation  revealed  to  mankind  through 
Christ.  Their  philosophical  position  is  weakened  by  the 
same  vacillation  about  the  value  of  the  phenomenal  world 
which  we  find  in  Maximus.  They  sometimes  disparage 
visible  things  in  the  manner  of  Dionysius,  and  sometimes 
attempt  to  give  them  a  real  importance,  as  when  Suso 
says,  "  Whoso  realises  the  inward  in  the  outward,  to  him 
the  inward  becomes  more  inward  than  to  him  who  only 
recognises  the  inward  in  the  inward."  The  impersonality 
of  Christ's  humanity  was  to  them  a  cardinal  doctrine ;  for 
the  goal  of  all  our  striving  is  that  the  human  personality 
may  become  so  completely  the  organ  of  the  Divine  that 
"  we  may  be  to  God  what  a  man's  hand  is  to  a  man,"  and 
that  "  I "  and  "  mine "  may  cease  to  have  any  meaning. 
"  Christ's  human  nature,"  says  the  author  of  the  German 
Theology,  "  was  utterly  bereft  of  self,  and  was  nothing  else 
but  a  house  and  habitation  of  God."  This,  unless  by 
"self"  we  understand  self-will,  is  Monophysitism.  But 
the  Eternal  Son,  they  say,  is  by  no  means  born  in  Christ 


GERMAN   MYSTICISM  8i 

alone.  It  is  only  sin  which  debars  us  from  "  becoming  by 
grace  what  Christ  is  by  nature." 

I  have  already  indicated  the  dangers  to  which  this  line 
of  thought — with  which,  notwithstanding,  I  have  great 
sympathy — exposes  us.  German  mysticism  was,  in  fact, 
to  some  extent  discredited  by  the  many  fantastic  errors, 
not  always  confined  to  speculation,  which  arose  in  con- 
nexion with  it.  Luther  showed  great  impatience  with 
the  "spiritualists"  of  his  day,  and  refused  to  give  any 
countenance  to  men  like  Sebastian  Frank  and  Carlstadt, 
who  were  genuine  disciples  of  the  Eckhartian  school. 
And  so  the  post-Reformation  theology,  which  should  have 
been  the  heir  of  these  Christian  idealists,  fell  again  under 
the  yoke  of  Aristotle ;  and  the  sharp  dualism  of  nature 
and  grace,  with  the  allied  doctrine  of  imputed  righteous- 
ness, made  a  scientific  Christology  as  impossible  as  in  the 
unreformed  Church.  We  find  the  same  tendency  in 
English  deism,  which  banished  God  from  the  world  and 
threw  the  greatest  difficulties  in  the  way  of  belief  in  an 
Incarnation.  These  imperfect  conceptions  of  the  nature 
of  the  Eternal  Word  are  caused  by  the  ever-recurring 
dualism  which  regards  God  and  man  as  disparate  and 
incommensurable  terms.  It  is  a  tendency  which  appears 
as  a  necessary  and  proper  reaction  from  the  premature 
syntheses  which  are  constantly  being  attempted ;  but  this 
admission  need  not  prevent  us  from  seeing  that  no  further 
development  of  Christology,  and  no  enlightenment  of  any 
kind,  can  come  from  this  side. 

The  problem  is  how  to  conceive  of  the  Godhead  and 
manhood  as  elements  which  are  not  mutually  exclusive, 
while  at  the  same  time  neither  is  allowed  to  curtail  the 
other.  For  instance,  Jesus  as  man  increased  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  but  we  can  by  no  means  allow  that  there 
is  any  growth  in  God,  for  this  would  be  to  subordinate 
Him,  for  whom  a  thousand  years  are  as  one  day,  to  the 


S2  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

category  of  time.  The  development  of  humanity,  whether 
in  the  race  or  in  the  individual,  must  not  be  identified  with 
the  life  of  God.  If  philosophers  are  justified  in  saying 
that  God  the  Father  must  need  "  an  Other  "  in  order  to 
come  to  Himself,  that  "  Other "  is  the  eternal  Logos  (who 
may  perhaps  be  considered  to  bear  a  relation  to  the  whole 
universe  of  created  things  analogous  to  that  which  our 
life  as  immortal  spirits  bears  to  our  changing  states),  and 
not  the  developing  life  of  the  human  race.  There  is  a 
history  of  humanity;  there  is  no  history  of  God.  But 
the  cosmic  process,  of  which  the  Word  of  God  is  the 
creating  Instrument,  the  Immanent  Life,  and  the  End, 
is,  as  I  have  said,  a  real  "moment"  or  "phase"  (the 
metaphors  are  inadequate  attempts  to  represent  what  no 
words  can  express)  of  God's  life,  and  the  laws  which 
govern  it  are  the  laws  in  which  His  will  always  and  every- 
where manifests  itself,  so  far  as  it  can  be  manifested 
under  the  imperfect  forms  of  time  and  space.  The 
doctrine  " /mmana  natura  capax  divince'^  means  that 
though  we  cannot  emancipate  ourselves  from  the  limita- 
tions of  a  life  lived  under  these  forms,  which  are  seen 
on  examination  to  contain  inner  contradictions,  yet  there 
is  that  in  the  human  spirit  which  stretches  into  the  infinite. 
As  St.  Augustine  says,  "  We  are  made  for  God,  and  our 
hearts  can  find  no  peace  till  they  rest  in  Him."  That  this 
union  with  God  is  the  ideal  consummation  of  religion,  and 
that  at  the  same  time  the  life  of  religion  is  entirely  occu- 
pied with  finite  relations,  is  the  paradox  or  mystery  of 
the  '•'' unio  mystica"  which  Christianity  does  not  attempt 
to  explain.  It  leaves  us,  we  must  admit,  with  an  un- 
resolved dualism,  but  it  shows  us  where  the  solution  must 
lie,  and  at  the  same  time  makes  it  clear  to  us  that  the 
mystery  is  one  which  must,  from  its  very  nature,  be  in- 
soluble to  the  finite  spirit.  The  ancient  theologians  never 
forgot  this,  in  spite  of  their  anxiety  to  secure  the  utmost 


WHAT   IS   DOGMA?  83 

possible  exactness  (aKpiPeia)  in  their  language  about  the 
Incarnation.  They  desired  that  their  language  about  God 
should  accurately  express  their  thought,  while  at  the  same 
time  they  acknowledged,  or  rather  insisted,  that  the  subject 
transcends  thought.^ 

Up  to  this  point  I  have  assumed  that  Catholic  dogma 
is  a  kind  of  commentary  on  the  preface  to  the  fourth 
gospel,  the  fruit  of  a  careful  philosophical  and  psycho- 
logical analysis  of  the  terms  used  in  stating  the  doctrines 
of  the  Incarnation  and  mystical  union.  But  we  must  not 
forget  that  the  creeds  are  partly  in  the  form  of  historical 
statements,  which  are  given  as  the  subject-matter  of 
religious  faith.  And  we  must  not  evade  the  question  : 
Are  these  historical  propositions  still  an  integral  part  of 
the  Christian  religion  as  a  living  force  in  the  world  ?  If 
we  would  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  question,  we 
must  try  to  get  a  clearer  idea  of  what  dogma  is,  and  what 
place  it  really  holds  in  religious  life  and  thought. 

There  are  some  to  whom  dogma  appears  to  be  an 
impure  mixture  of  thoughts,  sensible  images,  and  legends, 
the  result  of  a  wholly  illegitimate  attempt  to  combine 
myth  and  philosophy  by  turning  them  both,  absurdly,  into 
history.  Philosophy  and  mythology  are,  it  is  assumed, 
the  only  two  ways  of  representing  the  highest  intuitions 
of  the  human  spirit :  the  former  is  pure  thought,  and  deals 
with  general  notions  only ;  the  latter  is  conscious  allegory, 
the  avowed  object  of  which  is  to  give  vividness  to  our 
intuitions  and  to  furnish  us,  as  Plato  said,  with  a  raft  on 
which  we  may  accomplish  our  voyage  through  life  in 
safety.  When  philosophy  begins  to  personify  her  abstrac- 
tions, and  when  myth  lays  claim  to  historical  accuracy, 
both  become  ridiculous,  and  unworthy  of  the  attention  of 
serious  thinkers. 

^  cf.  e.s.  Augustine,  De  Trin.  v.  i,  quoted  by  Ottley,  Doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation^  vol.  ii.  p.  274. 


84  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

Now  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  the  proposed 
arrangement,  by  which,  we  may  presume,  philosophy  is 
assigned  to  the  educated  man  as  his  religion,  while  the 
vulgar  are  bidden  to  be  content  with  myth,  is  open  to  the 
same  charge  of  want  of  moral  seriousness  which  is  brought 
against  the  dogmatists.  Metaphysical  speculation,  as  I 
have  already  said,  shows  us  no  God  whom  we  can  worship; 
indeed  the  philosopher,  as  such,  is  not  a  worshipper;  his 
business  is  to  find  the  true,  not  to  adore  the  good.  And 
when  speculative  thinkers  propose  to  use  myth  to  give 
warmth  and  colour  to  their  pale  categories — to  retain  the 
figure  of  the  idealised  Christ  as  part  of  their  mental  furni- 
ture, while  believing  that  ecclesiastical  dogma  has  converted 
the  most  glorious  intuition  of  the  human  imagination 
into  a  soulless  record  of  unnatural  and  impossible  por- 
tents— they  are  playing  tricks  with  their  souls,  which  is 
a  very  dangerous  game.  To  maintain  a  myth,  which  we 
know  to  be  only  a  myth,  with  a  view  to  edification,  is  a 
dishonesty  to  ourselves  and  others,  which  brings  with  it 
a  heavy  retribution.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  allegory 
which  pretends  to  be  nothing  more — that  will  always 
have  its  place — but  of  the  deliberate  use  of  illusion  to 
produce  certain  desired  effects.  This,  I  say,  shows  a  lack 
of  seriousness  and  sincerity. 

The  truth  is,  that  philosophical  speculation  and  con- 
scious allegory  are  not  the  forms  in  which  religious  ideas 
naturally  express  themselves.  The  religious  life  moves  in 
an  atmosphere  neither  of  pure  thought  nor  of  poetical 
imagination ;  it  hovers  between  the  seen  and  the  unseen, 
between  the  temporal  and  the  eternal,  and  will  renounce 
its  fellowship  with  neither.  Like  Virgil's  "  Rumour," 
"ingreditur  solo,  et  caput  inter  nuJDila  condit."  And  so 
the  normal  y^r;;/  of  religious  faith  is  an  event,  or  series  of 
events,  which  is  conceived  as  having  actually  taken  place, 
and  which  is  valued  as  the  symbol  or  sacrament  of  an 


SYMBOLS  85 

eternal  and  spiritual  truth.  I  use  the  word  symbol,  not  as 
an  equivalent  for  a  poetical  image,  and  not  (as  some  use 
it)  of  an  arbitrary  and  conventional  sign ;  but  of  a  fact  or 
occurrence  in  the  phenomenal  world  which,  in  being  what 
it  is,  signifies  something  else  in  a  higher  order.  No  ap- 
pearance in  space  or  time  can  fully  represent  an  eternal 
fact ;  and  the  connexion  between  form  and  idea  is  sub- 
jective in  the  sense  that  it  rests  on  individual  feeling;  but 
the  connexion  is  real  to  us,  and  creative  fancy,  if  it  works 
at  all,  does  not  work  consciously,  as  it  does  in  allegory. 
Symbols  in  this  sense  are,  as  I  have  said,  the  nsLturaX  form 
for  religious  ideas.  The  justification  of  them  lies  in  the 
duality  of  all  experience,  a  duality  which  both  religion 
and  ethics  must  assume  to  be  only  apparent.  For  in  the 
moral  life  also  it  is  plain  that  if  there  is  no  essential 
connexion  between  the  spiritual  fact  and  its  temporal 
manifestation,  the  soul  cannot  be  soiled  by  the  deeds  of 
the  body;  the  mind  is  impeccable,  as  Plotinus  said. 
Religion  then  assumes  that  there  is  a  phenomenal  and  a 
spiritual  side  to  all  experience,  and  regards  the  former  as 
symbolic  of  the  latter.  In  the  case  of  a  Divine  revelation 
it  is  expected  that  the  local  and  temporal  manifestations 
will  correspond  with  the  magnitude  of  the  message ;  and 
too  often  the  fire  and  the  earthquake,  rather  than  the 
still  small  voice,  are  considered  to  be  the  most  appro- 
priate means  of  making  the  will  of  God  known  to  His 
creatures. 

Dogmatic  theology,  in  so  far  as  it  deals  with  historical 
propositions,  is  an  attempt  to  formulate  the  lower,  the 
phenomenal,  side  of  the  Christian  revelation.  The 
attempt  was  a  necessity ;  all  religions  have  done  the 
same;  and  we  must  face  the  fact  that  no  religion  has 
found  any  difficulty  in  manufacturing  symbols  to  supply 
its  needs.  The  creation  of  religious  symbols  has  taken 
place  in  perfectly  good  faith,  and,  it  must  be  added,  by 


86  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

perfectly  good  logic.  So  long  as  men  are  convinced  that 
a  spiritual  revelation,  the  truth  of  which  is  certain  to 
them,  must  have,  as  its  inseparable  concomitant,  certain 
events  in  the  visible  order,  they  are  justified  in  stating 
positively  that  those  events  actually  occurred.  They 
usually  appeal  to  external  historical  evidence  in  support 
of  their  beliefs ;  but  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  historical 
evidence  is  not  the  ground  of  their  conviction.  The 
evidence  for  miracles,  for  example,  if  treated  in  the 
manner  of  Paley  and  the  evidential  school,  is  almost 
worthless,  because  on  the  hypothesis  of  its  being  false 
we  can  say  with  confidence  that  it,  or  something  like  it, 
would  have  been  invented.  But  the  connexion  of  ideas, 
proved  by  the  value  set  upon  the  historical  narrative,  and 
the  vitality  of  belief  in  the  supernatural  are  hard  facts; 
and  those  who  impugn  the  truth  of  the  history  often 
forget  that  they  have  to  account  for  those  facts.  Every 
man  who,  while  striving  earnestly  to  lead  the  Christian 
life,  keeping  God  always  before  him,  and  taking  Christ 
as  his  model  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  finds  the  idea  of 
the  human  Christ,  including  His  miracles  and  resurrec- 
tion, an  integral  part  of  his  religious  faith,  adds  something 
(I  do  not  say  that  it  is  much)  to  the  evidence  for 
the  historical  side  of  Christianity,  including  (again)  its 
miracles.  It  is  not  fair  to  say  that  a  deep  faith  must 
also  be  a  narrow  one.  Those  who  believe  deeply  have  a 
good  right  to  be  heard  in  such  a  matter.  But  two 
cautions  are  necessary:  (i)  that  religious  symbols  soon 
acquire  a  conventional  as  well  as  a  real  connexion  with 
the  things  symbolised — I  mean  that  they  become  the 
natural  language  of  piety,  and  as  such  may  be  used  and 
stoutly  defended  even  by  those  whose  religious  conscious- 
ness would  not,  independently,  create  or  find  satisfaction 
in  them ;  and  (2)  that  the  strength  of  the  argument  for 
the  uniformity  of  nature  is  imperfectly  apprehended  by 


DEGRADATION   OF  SYMBOLS  87 

the  majority  of  those  who  have  not  received  a  scientific 
education. 

How  is  it  that  symbols  sometimes  lose  their  power? 
It  is  when  they  fail  to  represent  to  the  mind  the  things 
symbolised.  They  then  become  bare  fact  or  bare  fable, 
and  either  change  is  fatal  to  them.  To  a  certain  extent 
this  is  what  is  in  danger  of  happening  with  regard  to  the 
great  doctrines  about  the  Person  of  Christ.  The  mischief 
really  began  a  very  long  time  ago,  when  the  Church  was 
first  driven  to  institute  tests  to  safeguard  the  purity  and 
consistency  of  her  teaching.  In  order  to  exclude  heretics 
the  formulas  of  the  Church  were  turned  into  legal  docu- 
ments, the  acceptance  of  which  was  the  test  of  Church 
membership.  But  religious  symbols  cannot  be  so  treated 
without  danger  of  separating  the  symbol  from  the  thing 
symbolised.  The  real  basis  of  our  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  is  a  great  psychological  fact — a  spiritual  ex- 
perience. We  know  that  Christ  is  risen,  because,  as  St. 
Paul  says,  we  are  risen  with  Him.  If  this  basis  is  forgotten, 
the  event  becomes  an  isolated  occurrence  in  past  history, 
which  from  its  very  uniqueness  is  unimportant,  and  also 
impossible  to  establish.  Whenever  the  carnal  mind  (to  use 
St.  Paul's  phrase)  is  set  to  judge  of  spiritual  things,  this 
degradation  of  the  symbol  into  a  bare  fact  is  bound  to 
occur.  And  as  a  bare  fact  has  no  religious  content,  its 
flank  is  fatally  open  to  the  attacks  of  scepticism.  It  is  a 
dead  fact,  and  it  is  the  nature  of  dead  things  to  decompose 
and  vanish. 

But  the  long-standing  secularisation  of  dogma  is  not  the 
only  reason  why  much  of  it  holds  a  precarious  position 
at  the  present  time.  The  miraculous  element  in  the 
Gospels  is  a  very  serious  crux.  This  is  a  burning 
question,  on  which  both  caution  and  candour  are  neces- 
sary. Primitive  man  lives  among  miracles ;  he  expects 
them,  and  he  finds  them.     By  miracle  I  mean  what  the 


88  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

word  has  always  meant  in  periods  when  such  miracles 
are  reported — a  special  intervention  of  the  Divine  will, 
contrary  to  the  natural  order  of  things.  This  is  the  notion 
of  miracle  in  the  Bible  as  well  as  in  profane  literature.  In 
unscientific  ages  belief  in  miracles  is  not  a  sign  of  piety. 
Everybody  shares  it ;  it  puts  no  strain  on  the  conscience 
of  men ;  it  is  simply  the  most  obvious  and  natural  way 
to  account  for  anything  unusual.  The  Jews  and  King 
Herod  saw  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that 
Christ  was  Elijah,  or  even  John  the  Baptist,  who  had  just 
been  beheaded.  They  did  not  doubt  His  miracles ;  they 
attributed  them  to  Beelzebub.  These  are  indications  of  a 
state  of  mind  so  different  from  our  own  that  we  cannot 
be  surprised  if  the  religious  symbols  of  that  age  do  not 
appeal  to  us  quite  as  they  did  to  the  first  Christians.  The 
difficulties  which  many  people  now  feel  about  these 
miracles  may  be  stated  quite  candidly  as  follows:  "(i) 
They  are  unlikely.  The  laws  of  nature  appear  to  be 
uniform ;  and  persons  of  acknowledged  sanctity  among 
ourselves  do  not  show  a  trace  of  supernatural  powers. 
(2)  They  are  unmeaning.  We  should  not  now  expect, 
a  priori,  that  the  Incarnate  Logos  would  be  born  without 
a  human  father,  that  He  would  suspend  His  own  laws 
during  His  sojourn  on  earth,  or  that  He  would  resuscitate 
His  earthly  body  and  remove  it  into  the  sky;  nor  do 
we  see  that  those  events,  however  well  proved,  are  of  any 
value  as  evidence  for  His  divinity.  (3)  They  are  disturb- 
ing. What  we  want  to  be  assured  of  is  not  the  power  of 
the  Logos  to  alter  the  laws  of  nature— that  would  be  a 
poor  consolation,  since  within  our  experience  they  never 
are  altered — but  rather  that  the  Divine  life  can  be  lived 
under  essentially  human  conditions,  and  that  the  course  of 
nature  does  not  need  to  be  regulated  like  a  faulty  machine. 
An  Incarnation  which  needs  to  be  helped  out  by  super- 
natural intervention  is  not  a  complete  Incarnation,"     On 


MIRACLES  89 

the  other  hand,  there  is  a  vast  number  of  persons,  endowed 
both  with  brains  and  piety,  who  still  feel  the  miraculous 
element  in  the  Gospels  to  be  an  integral  part  of  their 
religious  belief,  and  who  are  firmly  convinced  that  the 
religion  of  Christ  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  physical 
resurrection  on  the  third  day.  I  have  already  said  that 
the  continued  existence  of  such  a  belief,  so  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  the  age,  is  a  fact  which  no  one  can  venture 
to  disregard,  for  it  bears  all  the  appearance  of  being  an 
instinctive  demand  of  the  basal  personality  in  those  who 
hold  it.  There  is  still,  and  probably  always  will  be,  a  large 
number  of  people  who  cling  tenaciously  to  the  belief — as  a 
postulate  of  the  practical  reason — that  there  must  be  some 
interaction  between  the  physical  and  psychical  (or  spiritual) 
worlds,  of  such  a  kind  as  to  give  evidence  of  the  supremacy 
of  the  spiritual  order,  by  forcing  the  natural  order  to  do 
homage  to  it.  Without  any  evidence  of  such  interaction 
they  would  see  no  escape  from  blank  materialism  or 
absolute  scepticism.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  many 
thinkers,  who  are  not  writing  in  the  interests  of  Christian 
dogma,  maintain  this  interaction  against  the  rival  hypo- 
thesis of  psycho-physical  parallelism.  Once  admit  this 
possibility,  and  there  is  no  bar  to  accepting  miracle  if  it  is 
well  attested.^ 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  there  is  at  present  no  agreement 
whether  miracles  are  to  be  expected  or  desired  as  part  of 

^  In  view  of  the  hostile  criticism  to  which  the  doctrine  of  parallelism 
has  lately  been  subjected  in  Dr.  Ward's  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism^  it  may 
not  be  superfluous  to  state  that  the  theory  professes  to  be  a  working  hypothesis, 
not  a  metaphysical  principle ;  that  its  ablest  exponents  are  neither  dualists 
nor  advocates  of  materialistic  "  Naturalism,"  but  idealists,  and  that  those  who 
wish  to  understand  it  should  study  Fechner,  Paulsen,  and  Wundt,  rather  than 
physicists  like  Haeckel.  The  theory  of  psycho-physical  parallelism  no  doubt 
makes  miracle  in  the  strict  sense  impossible,  but  the  belief  in  pan-psyckism, 
which  Fechner,  the  greatest  exponent  of  this  theory,  advocates  as  the  most 
probable  and  consistent  cosmological  hypothesis,  is  by  no  means  inconsistent 
with  a  deeply  religious  view  of  life,  and  indeed  is  quite  in  harmony  with  the 
Logos-doctrine  as  developed  by  orthodox  Greek  philosophy. 


90  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

a  revelation  of  the  Divine  life  and  character.  It  is  a 
subject  on  which  it  is  very  difficult,  and  generally  quite 
useless,  to  argue.  Religious  tradition  draws  us  in  one  direc- 
tion, the  spirit  of  the  age  in  the  other.  Those  whose  attitude 
is  not  determined  by  one  or  other  of  these  forces  are  for  the 
most  part  influenced  by  their  unformulated  philosophy  of 
life,  the  result  of  their  outward  and  inward  experience ;  a 
philosophy  which  is  generally  much  deeper  and  more 
respectable  than  the  arguments  which  they  can  adduce  in 
favour  of  it.  It  is  this  which  makes  theological  controversy 
so  generally  barren  and  futile  :  the  disputants  on  both  sides 
have  reasons  for  their  beliefs  which  they  cannot  express, 
and  of  which  they  are  more  than  half  unconscious :  they 
try  to  reason,  because  they  are  on  their  defence,  but  they 
are  not  prepared  to  acknowledge  defeat,  because  they  know 
that  their  convictions  are  too  deep  to  be  upset  by  mere 
logic  ;  and  so  the  only  result  of  the  discussion  is  a  mutual 
suspicion  of  disingenuousness.  But  there  are  one  or  two 
considerations  which  I  think  may  be  profitably  offered  on 
this  very  difficult  topic. 

Religion,  when  it  confines  itself  strictly  to  its  own 
province,  never  speaks  in  the  past  tense.  It  is  concerned 
only  with  what  is,  not  with  what  was.  History  as  history 
is  not  its  business.  And  abstract  science,  which  concerns 
itself  with  the  relations  which  prevail  between  phenomena, 
without  reference  to  ultimate  truth,  is  not  its  business 
either.  Events  or  aspects  of  events,  which  relate  only  to 
the  past,  may  be  left  to  historians.  Phenomena  or  aspects 
of  phenomena,  which  relate  only  to  the  material  world, 
may  be  left  to  men  of  science.  Errors  in  history,  or  errors 
in  science,  do  not  save  or  damn.  Errors  in  religion  are 
always  due  to  what  Plato  calls  "  the  lie  in  the  soul " ;  but 
a  man  may  believe  in  "  Brute  the  Trojan,"  or  in  the  philoso- 
pher's stone,  without  being  a  knave.  Religion  is  a  very 
practical  matter :  its  object,  as  an  intellectual  faculty,  is  to 


1 


THE   HISTORIC   CHRIST  91 

see  things  as  they  are,  not  to  discover  how  they  came  to 
be.  This  is  not  said  to  disparage  the  past,  or  to  suggest 
that  it  is  unimportant.  The  glacial  age  is  extremely 
important  to  the  engineer,  seeing  that  it  hollowed  out  the 
valleys  through  which  he  has  to  lay  his  road  or  railway ; 
but  a  man  may  be  a  very  good  engineer  and  at  the  same 
time  a  very  bad  geologist.  In  the  same  way  a  religious 
genius  may  be  a  very  bad  historian,  and  know  nothing  of 
science.  These  subjects  are  not  his  business,  and  he  is  not 
really  interested  in  them.  When  the  theologian  puts 
historical  propositions  into  his  creed,  he  does  so  because 
he  is  convinced  that  there  are  important  truths,  in  the 
spiritual  order,  which  are  dependent  on,  or  inseparable 
from,  those  events  in  the  past.  Let  us  then  (to  return  to 
the  particular  topic  which  we  are  now  considering)  ask 
ourselves.  What  is  the  truth,  in  the  spiritual  order,  which 
it  is  intended  to  protect  by  the  doctrines  of  the  virgin  birth, 
resurrection,  and  ascension  ?  The  answer  is  plain  :  it  is 
the  identification  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  with  the  Word 
of  God.  The  Church  held,  and  still  holds,  that  this 
identification  is  of  vital  importance,  the  articulus  stantis 
et  cadentis  ecclesiae.  In  other  words,  the  Church  holds 
that  the  redemption  of  humanity,  by  taking  it  up  into  the 
Divine  life,  had  as  its  necessary  counterpart — its  symbol 
or  sacrament  in  the  visible  order — the  Incarnation  of  the 
Word  of  God  in  the  Person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  We 
shall  therefore  reach  the  centre  of  our  subject  if  we  con- 
sider— (i)  Is  this  identification  certain?  (2)  Is  it  still 
an  integral  part  of  the  Christian  religion  ?  and  (3)  Does 
the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus 
conflict  with  generally  accepted  conclusions  of  philosophy 
and  science,  and  in  particular  with  the  theory  or  doctrine 
of  evolution? 

(i)  The  historical  fact  of  a  supremely  important  religious 
movement  in  the  first  century  A,D.  is  not  disputed,  nor  can 


92  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

it  be  denied  that  the  first  Christians  believed  that  it  had 
its  source  in  Christ.  But  is  it  certain  that  the  Christ  of 
the  Church  is  not  merely  an  idealised  figure,  to  whom  was 
attributed  (in  perfectly  good  faith)  all  that  the  religious 
consciousness  of  the  age  found  to  be  most  worthy  of  a 
Divine  Being  ?  The  scepticism  with  which  the  story  of  the 
Incarnation  is  often  regarded  by  thoughtful  people  must  not 
be  condemned  as  a  perverse  refusal  to  accept  a  narrative 
which  is  unusually  well  attested,  still  less  as  a  judicial 
blindness.  In  almost  all  other  cases  the  historian  is  able 
to  test  his  materials  by  some  external  criterion  of  prob- 
ability. He  will  use  Livy  or  Herodotus  as  authorities  for 
a  history  of  Rome  or  Greece,  accepting  this  statement 
and  rejecting  that  in  a  manner  which  would  be  highly 
audacious,  if  it  were  not  that  we  are  now  nearly  all  con- 
vinced that  many  events  recorded  by  those  historians  are 
things  which,  in  Dr.  Johnson's  words,  "do  not  happen." 
But  in  the  case  of  the  Incarnation  we  have  nothing 
with  which  to  compare  it ;  the  only  external  criterion  to 
which  we  can  appeal  is  the  judgment  of  the  Christian 
Church,  as  to  what  it  "behoved"  the  Son  of  God  to  do 
and  suffer;  and  this  is  a  matter  on  which  human  beings 
cannot  speak  with  authority  and  are  not  likely  to  agree. 
The  historian  of  Christianity  has  to  take  account  of 
events  of  an  unique  kind,  which  are  no  better  attested 
than  many  other  narratives  which  are  rejected  without 
hesitation,  because  they  contradict  "laws"  which  we  assume 
to  be  uniform.  It  may  be  answered,  as  I  have  already 
insisted,  that  the  belief  of  Christians  in  the  gospel  narra- 
tive does  not  rest  on  the  historical  evidence  only,  but 
on  the  affirmations  of  the  religious  consciousness,  which 
demands  a  visible  manifestation  of  a  spiritual  fact.  But 
would  not  this  demand  be  satisfied  by  the  hypothesis  of 
a  diffused  incarnation,  a  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  upon 
all  flesh,  or  upon  the  chosen  spirits  of  a  generation,  in 


EVIDENCE  NECESSARILY  INCONCLUSIVE  93 

consequence  of  which  its  sons  and  daughters  began  to 
prophesy,  its  old  men  to  see  visions,  and  its  young  men 
to  dream  dreams — visions  or  dreams  of  an  idealised  divine- 
human  personality,  clothed  with  all  the  attributes  of  per- 
fection which  the  newly  quickened  spiritual  imagination 
could  suggest  ?  In  one  sense,  the  light  of  the  Incarnation 
must  have  "shone  in  the  hearts"  of  the  first  Christians, 
as  well  as  "  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ."  For  otherwise 
they  could  not  have  believed  in  Him  (John  vi.  44,  45) ; 
every  process  of  teaching  requires  two  competent  parties, 
one  to  speak  and  one  to  hear.  And  is  it  not  possible  that 
it  pleased  God  to  "  reveal  His  Son  in  "  the  first  generation 
of  Christians,  as  He  did  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul,  with  no 
historical  foundation  except  the  brief  ministry  of  the 
Galilean  prophet,  whose  pure  and  elevated  character  was 
capable  of  the  necessary  idealisation  ? 

It  is  from  no  wish  to  ask  a  hearing  for  unprofitable 
speculations  that  I  think  it  right  to  say  that  theories  of 
this  kind  cannot  be  disproved  with  the  completeness  which 
all  Christians  would  desire.  In  dealing  with  past  events 
we  must  be  content  with  something  less  than  certainty. 
The  whole  of  history  is  beyond  all  question  honeycombed 
with  false  statements  which  must  go  for  ever  uncorrected  ; 
even  the  simplest  event  or  conversation  is  seldom  de- 
scribed with  any  approach  to  accuracy  by  those  who  have 
seen  or  heard  it  a  few  minutes  before.  It  is  therefore 
barely  honest  to  assert,  as  some  have  done,  that,  on  the 
historical  evidence  only,  either  the  discourses  of  Christ,  or 
His  miracles,  or  His  resurrection  on  the  third  day  after 
His  crucifixion  are  absolutely  certain.  The  evidence  may 
be  as  good  as  possible ;  it  is  not  possible  for  it  to  be  good 
enough  to  justify  such  a  statement  as  this. 

Can  we  then  appeal  to  intuition  or  inward  experience 
to  reinforce,  or  even  guarantee,  the  historical  evidence? 
Unquestionably  an  intense  conviction  of  the  fact  of  an 


94  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

Incarnation  in  the  person  of  Jesus  has  been  for  nearly 
two  thousand  years  a  normal  result  or  concomitant  of 
earnest  personal  religion.  This  fact  is  valid  evidence  for 
mystics,  who  believe  that  growth  in  grace  is  accom- 
panied by  a  progressive  enlightenment  of  the  under- 
standing, which  may  even  be  compared  to  the  acquisition 
of  a  new  sense.  But  even  for  them  it  does  not  amount 
to  proof;  for  the  holiest  saint  is  still  far  from  having 
reached  the  height  whence  all  things  can  be  seen  in  their 
true  proportions.  And  it  will  be  objected,  (^a)  that  such 
evidence  is  valid  only  for  those  who  have  this  experience 
— intuitions  are  not  transferable ;  and  (d)  that  the  mytho- 
poeic  tendency  of  the  religious  consciousness  is  so  pro- 
nounced as  to  throw  suspicion  upon  its  affirmations,  even 
when  they  are  supported  by  historical  evidence.  We  are 
driven  back  to  the  question :  Is  the  demand  for  a  local 
and  temporal  Incarnation  based  on  the  nature  of  things, 
or  on  the  temporary  needs  of  a  still  only  half-developed 
spiritual  sense?  This  is  a  question  which  obviously  we 
cannot  answer,  since  we  cannot  stand  outside  our  environ- 
ment. Speaking  generally,  I  do  not  think  that  we  shall 
advance  in  the  knowledge  of  Divine  truths  by  struggling 
against  the  anthropomorphism  (or  rather  anthropo- 
psychism)  which  is  natural  to  us.  It  is  much  more  to 
the  purpose  to  try  to  make  the  particular  specimen  of 
the  avOpw-TTog,  whom  alone  we  know,  and  who  is  therefore 
necessarily  our  type,  somewhat  less  unlike  Him  in  whose 
image  he  was  made,  and  whose  glory  he  was  intended 
to  reflect. 

Those  who  are  not  in  sympathy  with  mysticism  must 
be  content  with  such  probability  as  can  be  arrived  at 
by  purely  historical  methods.  And  a  much  higher  degree 
of  probability  can  be  claimed,  on  merely  historical  grounds, 
for  the  general  drift  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  for  the  extreme 
beauty  of  His  character,  and  for  the  fact  that  He  claimed 


THE   RELIGIOUS   CONSCIOUSNESS        95 

to  stand  in  an  unique  relation  to  the  Father,  than  for  the 
verbal  accuracy  of  any  particular  discourse,  or  for  any 
event,  especially  of  a  miraculous  character.  Moreover,  the 
Ritschlian  school  is  right  in  insisting  that  the  impression 
which  Christ  made  on  those  who  saw  and  heard  Him  is 
known  to  us  as  a  solid  fact  which  no  criticism  can  upset. 

(2)  Let  us  now  ask  ourselves  what  is  at  stake  in  this 
question  of  a  Divine  Incarnation  in  the  Person  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  principle  of  Christianity  has 
now  so  far  come  to  self-consciousness  that  the  ethical 
teaching  of  Christ  is  almost  independent  of  His  authority. 
I  mean  that  the  civilised  world  now  accepts  His  teaching 
in  theory  (though  falling  sadly  short  of  it  in  practice) 
not  only  because  He  said  it,  but  because  it  has  been 
definitively  approved  by  the  moral  consciousness  of 
civilised  humanity.  And  as  for  the  atonement,  that  is 
a  truth  which  belongs  to  the  spiritual  order.  No  shed- 
ding of  blood — not  even  that  of  the  Lamb  of  God — 
could  literally  wash  away  sin.  Nor  could  the  physical 
resurrection  of  one  man,  or  of  many,  deprive  death  of 
its  sting  and  the  grave  of  its  victory.  Whether  these 
physical  manifestations  were  necessary  it  is  impossible  for 
us  to  know ;  but  at  most  they  can  only  be  efficacia  signa, 
not  the  efficient  causes,  of  our  redemption.  It  cost  more 
than  this  to  redeem  our  souls. 

There  is  an  influential  school  of  thinkers,  very  numerous 
in  Germany,  who  believe  that  in  the  historical  Christ,  re- 
garded as  a  mere  man,  we  have  a  figure  which  can 
serve  us  as  a  model  of  the  highest  perfection,  and  which 
can  assure  us  of  the  perfectibility  of  human  nature  with 
all  the  greater  certainty  in  that  He  never  claimed  to  be 
other  than  a  man  like  ourselves.  Now  I  admit  that  it  is 
difficult  for  one  whose  intellectual  and  religious  sympathies 
are  with  the  Johannine  Logos-doctrine  and  kindred  philo- 
sophies of  later  times,  to  do  justice  to   theories  of  the 


96  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

Person  of  Christ  which  have  a  wholly  different  theological 
basis.  It  is  useless  to  argue  about  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
until  we  are  agreed  what  the  "  Divinity "  of  Christ  means. 
And  I  fully  recognise  that  to  Christian  thinkers  of  the 
Ritschlian  and  Neo-Kantian  schools  the  acceptance  of  the 
Nicene  formula  is  impossible.  But  it  seems  to  me  clear 
that  if  the  Gospel  narratives  are  as  trustworthy  as  some  of 
these  writers  are  obliged  by  their  own  theory  to  hold  them 
to  be,  then  Christ  claimed  to  be  not  merely  the  Messiah, 
or  the  Son  of  Man  par  excellence^  but  to  stand  in  an 
unique  relation  to  His  Father  in  heaven.  This  uniqueness 
may  be  best  expressed  by  saying  that  that  consciousness 
of  complete  identification  with  the  life,  the  will,  and  the 
purpose  of  God,  which  with  most  of  us  is  only  the 
imagined  condition  of  beatified  spirits,  was  with  Him  an 
abiding  possession,  a  steady  flame  illuminating  His  whole 
inner  life.  Nothing  at  all  like  it  can  be  found  in  the  lives 
of  the  saints ;  for  though  a  few  of  them  have  (rightly  or 
wrongly)  believed  themselves  to  have  had  ecstatic  ex- 
periences of  such  union,  no  sane  person  has  ever  claimed 
it  as  a  permanent  condition.  If  the  narratives  cannot  be 
trusted  in  the  matter  of  this  claim,  which  manifestly  runs 
through  the  whole  of  the  Gospels,  it  is  useless  to  build 
anything  upon  the  character  of  Christ,  for  we  can  assert 
nothing  about  Him,  except  that  He  was  the  probable 
author  of  some  striking  aphorisms.  We  have  no  right  to 
reject  not  only  the  miraculous  element  in  the  gospel 
narratives,  which,  as  I  have  said,  must  be  treated  as  a 
separate  problem,  but  half  of  our  Lord's  declarations  about 
His  own  Person,  and  then  to  assert  confidently  that  He 
was  a  morally  perfect  character,  whom  we  must  reverence 
as  having  first  fully  realised  and  revealed  the  true  relations 
between  God  the  Father  and  mankind.  If  we  reject  Christ's 
testimony  to  Himself  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament, 
we  must  regard  His  moral  perfection  as  a  hypothesis  which 


HUMANITARIAN   THEORIES   FAIL        97 

IS  supported  by  no  sufficient  evidence,  and  which  is  in 
itself  extremely  improbable.  For  nobody  who  knows 
anything  of  human  nature  can  argue  that  the  most 
elevated  teaching  is  incompatible  with  grievous  moral 
weakness.  The  world  has  seen  too  many  great  moralists 
whose  lives  have  been  very  faulty.  We  must  then,  on 
this  hypothesis,  face  the  probability  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  only  a  mere  man,  but  a  sinful  man  like  our- 
selves. Is  it  only  the  force  of  old  associations  which 
makes  us  shrink  with  dismay  from  such  an  admission  ? 
I  think  not.  The  sinlessness  of  Christ  is  the  one  of  His 
divine  attributes  which  we  cannot  afford  to  part  with. 
We  might  dispense  with  the  belief  in  His  power  over 
nature  whilst  He  lived  as  a  man  amongst  men ;  but  to 
give  up  His  divine  character  is  to  sever  the  most  precious 
link  in  the  chain  which  binds  heaven  and  earth  together. 
If  there  has  been  no  Incarnation,  if  no  morally  perfect 
Being,  perfect  even  as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect, 
has  ever  lived  on  earth,  then  there  has  been  and  is  no 
revelation  of  God  as  a  Person.  The  God  of  nature  is 
impersonal ;  and  the  voice  of  God  within  our  hearts 
cannot  always  be  distinguished  from  our  own  thoughts. 
The  "human  voice  through  the  thunder"  has  never 
sounded  except  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  Christ.  His  life, 
as  the  Gospels  represent  it  to  have  been,  is  the  con- 
firmation of  the  declaration  that  man  was  made  in  the 
image  of  God ;  it  is  an  assurance  that  union  with  God 
is  not  merely  a  logical  conclusion  of  speculative  idealism, 
but  a  living  truth,  which  has  been,  is,  and  will  be.  It 
is  an  assurance  that  God  is  not  only  an  ideal  perfection 
whom  we  can  worship,  but  a  Person  who  loves  us. 
Whether  there  are  some  persons  who  could  entertain 
the  same  feelings  towards  the  "bare  Logos"  (yu/xi/o? 
Xoyo?),  as  the  Greeks  called  it — the  Eternal  Word  by  whom 
the  worlds  were  made,  and  who  sustains  them  in  life — 

H 


98  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

may  be  a  doubtful  question  ;  but  for  the  majority  there 
is  no  doubt  that  Cyril  interprets  their  feelings  rightly 
when  he  says,  "If  the  Incarnation  was  a  phantasm,  then 
our  salvation  is  a  phantasm  too." 

There  is  another  way  in  which  the  Incarnation  is  in- 
separably bound  up  with  the  Christian  religion.  That 
religion  has  always  been,  in  its  attitude  to  society,  a 
revolutionary  principle,  not  in  the  sense  of  inciting  to 
rebellion  against  authority,  but  as  involving  a  complete 
transvaluation  of  all  the  external  conditions  of  life.  Even 
in  Mary's  hymn  at  the  Annunciation,  the  note  of  defiance 
against  the  world  is  sounded :  "  He  hath  put  down  the 
mighty  from  their  seat,  and  hath  exalted  the  humble  and 
meek."  The  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel  were  accused, 
and  justly  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  opponents,  of 
"  turning  the  world  upside  down."  In  the  profound  trans- 
mutation of  values  which  Christianity  proclaimed,  wealth 
and  social  distinction  were  stripped  of  all  their  prestige, 
and  faithful  service  was  declared  to  be  the  sole  title  to 
honour.  But  this  teaching  rested  not  only  on  the  words 
of  Christ,  but  on  His  example.  "  The  Son  of  Man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister."  "Let  this 
mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus ;  who 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  a  prize  to  be 
on  an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied  Himself,  and  took 
upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men."  Thus  service  and  suffering  were  shown 
for  the  first  time  to  be  divine ;  God  was  manifested  in  the 
persecuted  and  crucified  Lover  of  mankind.  The  full  force 
of  this  revelation  is  sometimes  obscured  by  dwelling  too 
much  on  the  subsequent  exaltation  of  the  Christ.  He 
came  to  reveal  God,  not  as  King,  but  as  Love.  The 
"  lifting  up  "  of  the  Son  of  Man,  which  has  drawn  all  men 
to  Him,  was  the  crucifixion,  not  the  ascension  into  heaven. 
It   is   His   surrender,   not   His   assumption,  of   almighty 


THE   INCARNATION   NECESSARY  99 

power  that  has  so  profoundly  altered  the  standard  by 
which  we  judge  of  greatness  and  success.  Deny  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  and  the  life  of  Christ  means 
even  less  (on  this  side)  than  the  life  of  Buddha. 

Lastly,  our  Lord's  personality  is  an  integral  part  of  His 
revelation  in  a  way  in  which  the  personality  of  no  other 
religious  teacher  is.  It  was  not  His  method,  as  with 
Socrates  or  Buddha,  that  was  to  save  mankind,  but  His 
Person.  His  invitation  to  the  weary  and  heavy-laden  is 
simply,  "  Come  unto  Me."  Such  language  without  a  corre- 
sponding perfect  life  would  have  been  the  profoundest 
self-contradiction,  and  without  the  authority  which  belongs 
to  a  Divine  Being  alone  would  have  been  the  most  amazing 
arrogance.  And  as  a  historical  fact,  it  is  His  Person  and 
not  His  method  that  has  overcome  the  world. 

I  conclude,  then,  that  belief  in  the  "  Divinity "  of  the 
historical  Christ  is  still  an  essential  part  of  Christianity 
for  four  reasons :  {a)  If  Christ  did  not  claim  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  in  a  sense  which  applied  to  Himself  alone, 
the  gospels  are  too  untrustworthy  to  have  any  historical 
value.  The  real  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  lost  to  us  irre- 
coverably, {b)  There  is  one  essential  attribute  of  divinity 
which  Christianity  can  never  consent  to  surrender  in  the 
case  of  Christ — namely,  His  sinlessness.  If  He  was  a 
sinner  like  ourselves,  the  union  between  God  and  man, 
which  Christianity  asserts  to  be  a  fact,  is  still  an  un- 
realised ideal,  {c)  The  voluntary  humiliation  of  the  Lord 
of  all  is  an  integral  part  of  Christianity,  {d)  The  highest, 
most  distinctive,  and  most  potent  parts  of  His  teaching 
are  bound  up  with  the  personal  claim. 

(3)  But  I  must  not  end  without  noticing  briefly  two 
objections,  one  philosophical,  the  other  scientific,  which 
have  been  raised  against  the  possibility  of  an  Incarnation. 
It  has  been  felt  by  some  that  the  life  of  an  individual, 
however  holy  and   pure,  is   an  inadequate  and,  in   fact, 


100  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

impossible  medium  for  the  expression  of  the  life  of  God. 
The  attributes  which  we  are  accustomed  to  regard  as 
most  intimately  and  inseparably  connected  with  the  nature 
of  God  are  infinitude,  omnipresence,  omniscience,  and 
omnipotence.  How  can  these  attributes  be  represented 
in  the  life  of  one  living  under  human  conditions?  Now, 
in  the  first  place,  as  I  have  said  already,  Jesus  Christ  never 
claimed  to  be  the  Absolute.  God  as  an  object  of  worship 
— the  God  of  all  religion — is  not  the  Absolute,  but  the 
highest  finite  form  under  which  the  Absolute  can  manifest 
Himself.  And,  secondly,  the  attributes  of  infinitude, 
omnipresence,  and  the  rest  are  attributes  of  God  as 
unconditioned  Spirit,  but  they  do  not  appear  to  be  His 
highest  and  most  inalienable  attributes  as  an  object  of 
human  worship  or  of  human  knowledge.  We  must  be- 
ware of  allowing  physical  and  mechanical  symbols  or 
metaphors  (for  those  mentioned  are  nothing  better  than 
this)  to  dominate  those  other  symbols  which  we  borrow 
from  our  own  moral  and  spiritual  nature.  The  ideas  of 
justice,  mercy,  sympathy  may  bring  us  nearer  to  the  heart 
of  God  than  that  of  omnipotence.  There  is  not  neces- 
sarily anything  divine  about  omnipotence.  It  is  conceiv- 
able that  the  universe  might  have  been  ruled  by  an 
omnipotent  devil ;  in  which  case  men  would  have  been 
found  to  defy  him,  and  go  to  his  hell  coerced,  but 
unsubdued.  But  perfect  love  we  are  able  to  worship, 
whether  armed  with  twelve  legions  of  angels,  or  helpless 
in  the  cradle  and  on  the  cross.  The  idea  of  love  is  so 
all-embracing,  and  stretches  out  so  far  into  the  infinite, 
that  we  feel  that  here,  if  here  only,  we  are  in  contact  not 
with  a  symbol  only  of  God's  nature,  but  with  the  reality 
itself  But  love,  it  is  needless  to  say,  requires  a  human 
or  superhuman  personality.  If  then  we  divest  ourselves 
of  the  misleading  notion  of  spatial  infinity  as  the  highest 
expression  of  God's  nature,  and  of  the  somewhat  barbarous 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED  loi 

and  unethical  notion  of  unlimited  arbitrary  power  as  His 
highest  prerogative,  we  shall  find  no  difficulty  in  bowing 
before  the  name  of  Jesus  as  embodying,  so  far  as  the 
nature  of  things  permits,  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead. 

The  scientific  objection  is  connected  with  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  and  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  Strauss, 
who  was  one  of  the  first  to  urge  it.  **  The  idea  does  not 
pour  all  its  riches  into  a  single  individual.  It  is  against 
all  analogy  that  the  fulness  of  perfection  should  be  met 
with  at  the  outset  of  any  evolution  whatsoever ;  those 
who  place  it  at  the  origin  of  Christianity  are  victims  of 
the  same  illusion  as  the  ancients,  who  placed  the  Golden 
Age  at  the  beginning  of  human  history."  Now  it  must 
be  said  at  once  that  the  answer  which  popular  super- 
naturalism  gives  to  this  objection  (and  it  is  an  objection 
which  has  gained  an  even  sharper  edge  since  Strauss 
wrote)  cannot  satisfy  us.  Even  Aristotle  protested  that 
"nature  is  not  episodic,  like  a  bad  tragedy";  and  we  may 
add,  in  the  same  spirit,  that  the  denouement  of  the  great 
human  drama  could  not  be  by  a  deus  ex  machina,  "  as  in  a 
bad  tragedy."  If  the  Incarnation  occurred  two  thousand 
years  ago,  it  must  have  been  because  that  was  the  earliest 
moment  at  which  it  was  possible,  though  it  had  been 
steadily  prepared  for  since  man  was  created.  Rejecting 
then  the  answer  of  miraculous  intervention  as  no  answer 
at  all,  we  offer  to  the  objectors  the  following  considera- 
tions. The  analogy  of  other  human  achievements  shows 
that  there  is  no  uniformity  in  progress,  and  that  some 
of  the  higher  arts  culminated  long  ago.  If  sculpture 
reached  its  zenith  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  B.C., 
architecture  in  the  Middle  Ages,  painting  at  the  Italian 
Renaissance,  why  may  not  the  highest  religious  genius 
have  lived  two  thousand  years  ago  ?  But  there  is  another 
answer  which  is  of  much  greater  value.  If  we  inquire 
what  was  the  relation  of  Christ's  revelation  to  the  past 


102  THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

and  the  future,  we  shall  find  that  it  was  not  so  catastro- 
phic as  is  sometimes  supposed.  The  profound  words  of 
St.  Paul  with  reference  to  an  incident  in  Old  Testament 
history — "That  Rock  was  Christ" — should  never  be  for- 
gotten, if  we  wish  to  understand  that  apostle's  teaching 
on  the  Incarnation.  "  It  may  be  said,"  writes  William 
Law,  "in  a  true  and  certain  sense,  that  from  the  time 
of  the  Fall  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  began, 
because  He  was  from  that  time  entered  again  into  human 
nature,  as  a  seed,  or  beginning  of  its  salvation,  hidden 
under  the  veil  of  the  law,  and  not  made  manifest  till 
He  was  born  in  the  holy  Virgin  Mary."  And  as  to  the 
future,  we  need  only  refer  to  St.  John  (xiv.  12;  xvi.  12,  13, 
15,  25)  to  prove  that  Christianity  proclaimed  itself  from 
the  first  to  be  essentially  a  principle  of  growth.  The 
kingdom  of  the  Spirit  means  progressive  revelation ;  it 
involves  belief  in  development,  the  doctrine  of  which  had 
never  before  been  so  clearly  stated  as  it  was  by  the  Christ 
of  the  fourth  gospel.  The  purpose  of  the  Incarnation 
was  to  inaugurate  a  new  era,  not  to  preclude  the  possibility 
of  any  further  advance.  Nor  does  this  aspect  of  the 
Christian  revelation  involve  any  derogation  from  the 
absolute  supremacy  of  Christ.  According  to  His  own 
declarations  He  came  on  earth  to  reveal  to  us  the  Father^ 
and  sent  us  the  Holy  Spirit  to  reveal  to  us  Himself.  The 
reign  of  the  Spirit  is  the  reign  of  Christ ;  His  office  is 
to  exhibit  a  Christophany  in  the  life  of  humanity  itself. 

I  do  not,  then,  think  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
conflicts  at  all  with  the  Christian  doctrine  of  a  historical 
Incarnation  two  thousand  years  ago.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  I  do  not  think  that  we  have  any  right  to  hurl  such 
names  as  "  infidel "  against  those  who  find  the  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  belief  insuperable.  The  divinity  of  the 
historical  Christ  is  a  dogma  which  cannot  be  proved  by 
external  evidence;  and  though  some  may  claim  to  have 


FALSE   METHODS   IN   APOLOGETICS     103 

had  it  revealed  to  them  in  a  manner  which  admits  of 
no  doubt,  they  cannot  make  their  experiences  valid  for 
others.  The  loss  of  the  belief  to  most  of  us  would  be 
incalculable ;  it  would  deprive  us  of  nearly  all  our  joy  and 
peace  in  believing.  But  let  us  remember  (so  that  we  may 
do  justice  to  those  who  cannot  accept  it)  that  without 
it  men  may  still  treasure  the  supreme  ethical  revelation 
of  perfect  humanity  in  the  gospels,  a  revelation  which 
would  remain  a  precious  treasure  to  mankind  even  if  it 
were  an  unrealised  ideal.  They  may  still  listen  to  the 
voice  of  God  within  them,  testifying  that  the  law  of  Christ, 
as  they  read  it  in  the  New  Testament,  is  the  law  under 
which  we  live  ;  that  sin  is  blotted  out  by  love  and  self- 
sacrifice  ;  and  that  every  step  in  moral  progress  is  a 
passage  through  death  unto  life  —  a  crucifixion  and 
resurrection.  Christianity  so  mutilated  is  an  austere 
and  difficult  religion,  but  not  an  ignoble  one ;  and  those 
who  are  trying  to  guide  their  lives  by  its  light  are  deserv- 
ing of  sympathy  rather  than  harsh  condemnation.  It 
is  a  comparatively  easy  thing  to  do  violence  to  our 
intellect,  when  we  are  desirous  on  all  grounds  to  reach 
a  certain  conclusion.  A  man  who,  though  of  a  religious 
temper,  refuses  to  do  this  is  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God.  His  faith,  for  faith  it  often  really  is,  even  in 
the  religious  sense,  may  end  in  definite  Christian  con- 
viction, or  it  may  not.  We  can  only  know  in  part,  while 
we  live  here ;  and  we  may  be  sure  that  "  when  that  which 
is  perfect  is  come,"  Christ  will  own  many  as  His  friends 
who  have  borne  the  cross  without  hoping  for  the  crown. 

This  discussion  may  seem  unsatisfactory,  both  in  its 
method  and  conclusion,  to  those  who  have  been  accustomed 
to  find  the  "proofs"  of  Christianity  in  the  historical 
evidence  for  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  in  the  miracles 
which  He  is  recorded  to  have  wrought  while  on  earth. 


104  THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

This  mode  of  apologetics  was  very  popular  in  the  last 
century,  and  was  elaborated  with  great  skill  by  divines 
whose  names  are  still  famous.  But  it  was  not  an  accident 
that  it  flourished  most  at  the  period  when  religion  was 
at  its  very  lowest  ebb  in  England.  I  do  not  wish  to 
associate  myself  with  the  contempt  which  has  been  cast 
upon  the  "  Old  Bailey  theology  "  of  Paley  and  his  school ; 
but  I  do  wish  to  impress  upon  my  readers,  with  all  the 
earnestness  that  I  can,  that  it  is  a  false  method,  and  that 
those  who  rely  upon  it  are  trusting  to  a  broken  reed,  which 
will  pierce  their  hands  as  soon  as  they  really  lean  upon  it. 
The  majority  of  Christians  to-day  do  not  really  lean  upon 
it,  whatever  they  may  think  ;  they  are  Christians  because 
they  have  found  Christ,  or  rather  because  Christ  has  found 
them,  not  because  they  have  given  the  apostles  a  fair  trial 
on  the  charge  of  perjury  and  acquitted  them.  The  Christ 
whose  claims  are  made  "  probable  "  by  such  arguments  is 
a  dead  Christ,  who  could  only  preside  over  a  dead  church. 
But  we  are  not  driven  to  base  our  hope  of  salvation  on 
probabilities ;  we  know  Him  in  whom  we  have  believed ; 
and  those  who  are  even  beginning  to  know  Christ  as  He 
is  will  ponder  reverently  and  diligently,  but  not  over 
anxiously,  on  what  He  was.  For  He  was  nothing  then 
that  He  is  not  now ;  He  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  for  ever ;  and  neither  things  past,  nor  things  present, 
nor  things  to  come  can  separate  us  from  His  love. 


III. 
THE  TEACHING   OF  CHRIST 

By  H.  L.  wild 

Pag» 
Introduction. 

1.  The  scientific  spirit — The  strength  of  this  in  the  desire  to  know 

the  truth— The  scientific  spirit  in  history — Aims  of  the  new 
school  of  religious  historians — The  suspicion  with  which  their 
work  is  often  regarded  unfounded — The  work  not  merely  the 
inevitable  result  of  a  larger  movement,  but  also  a  gain  to 
religion,  rendering  consistent  and  intelligible  what  was  formerly 
fragmentary  and  obscure  .  .  .  .        107-109 

2.  Purpose  of  the  essay  to  summarise  results  of  this  work  in  so  far  as 

it  relates  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  thereby  affording  an  intro- 
duction to  larger  treatises,  and  suggesting  an  attitude  towards 
them  ,  .  .  .  ...     no 

3.  This  involves  a  previous  question — The  original  documents — Evi- 

dence of  the  synoptists — Separate  consideration  of  St.  John's 
Gospel       .  .  .  .  .  .         ,     III 

I.  General  review  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  recorded  by  the  synoptists. 

1.  Its  apparent  lack  of  form  and  occasional  character  involved  in  a 

reactionary  attempt  to  reach  the  popular  mind — The  language 
and  images  those  of  eveiyday  life — The  material  character  of 
the  illustrations  and  parables — Dangers  of  allegorical  methods  of 
interpretation — Real  purpose  of  these  material  illustrations      112-115 

2.  The  teaching  at  once  popular  and  esoteric — Importance  of  the 

general  underlying  ideas,  and  particularly  of  the  personal 
element     .  .  .  .  .  .         .     ii6 

3.  This  personal  element  revealed  by  contrast  (a)  with  St.  John  the 

Baptist,  {JJ)  with  the  scribes — revealed  also  in  the  mode  of 
handling  the  Old  Testament  books  and  the  ancient  Law — 
Importance  of  appreciating  this  for  understanding  Jesus'  system, 
in  which  the  leading  ideas  are  all  closely  interwoven  and  made 
to  centre  in  Jesus'  own  personality — Difficulty  of  deciding  which 
of  the  leading  ideas  should  be  first  discussed,  but  we  begin  most 
naturally  with  .....      117-121 


I06  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

Page 

II.  The  kingdom  of  God — Basis  for  this  found  in  previous  thought,  but 

radical  changes  introduced  (a)  by  new  conception  of  righteous- 
ness, (d)  by  developed  doctrine  of  God's  Fatherhood — Cardinal 
importance  of  the  doctrine  of  God's  Fatherhood  in  Jesus'  system 
— Its  relation  (a)  to  suffering,  {d)  to  sin — Faith  which  accepts  it 
seen  as  the  only  source  of  life  and  power,  and  the  foundation  of 
the  true  view  of  prayer — The  appreciation  of  this  doctrine  essen- 
tial to  understanding  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  in  its  twofold 
character:  (i)  As  a  state  of  the  individual  soul  in  relation  to 
God ;  (2)  As  a  society — How  far  did  Jesus  look  forward  to  an 
organised  Church  or  an  earthly  establishment  of  the  kingdom? 
Such  questions,  together  with  those  that  relate  to  man's  future 
destiny,  closely  connected  with  Faith  and  the  view  of  God's 
Fatherhood — Universality  of  the  kingdom — Neither  the  doctrine 
of  faith  nor  that  of  the  kingdom  to  be  understood  apart  from  12  2-1 31 

III.  Jesus'  teaching  as  to  His  own  Person — This  best  considered  under 

the  three  chief  titles:  (i)  Son  of  David — Popular  character  of 
this  title— Reasons  for  avoiding  it.  (2)  Son  of  Man— Esoteric 
character  of  the  revelation  under  this  title — Its  Messianic  signi- 
fication— Its  use  in  intimate  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
kingdom — Its  full  significance  only  revealed  at  Csesarea  Philippi 
in  conjunction  with  the  supreme  title  (3)  Son  of  God — Unique 
significance  of  this  title  as  applied  to  Jesus  due  to  His  own 
teaching — Its  use  not  inconsistent  with  a  certain  subordination 
— Its  adoption,  regarded  as  blasphemous,  leads  inevitably  to 
death — It  is  none  the  less  retained  as  essential  to  the  revelation. 
Connected  with  the  certainty  of  approaching  suffering  and 
death  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  {a)  His  resurrection, 
(b)  His  continued  presence,  (c)  His  redemption  of  mankind, 
{d)  His  return — A  consideration  of  the  circumstances  of  the  re- 
turn leads  back  to  the  doctrine  of  God's  Fatherhood,  on  which  all 
else  is  seen  to  depend — The  teaching  in  all  its  aspects  is  summed 
up  in  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist,  which  belongs  to      .      132-142 

IV.  The   Teaching   by  Act,   which  forms  so  important  a  part  of  the 

records — Further  instances  of  this — The  little  child  in  the 
midst — The  miracles — A  general  consideration  of  the  miracles 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  upon  any  view  they  serve  to  reveal 
the  personality  as  the  writers  conceived  it,  and  thus  are  essential 
to  that  record  and  revelation  of  personahty  with  which  we  are 
supremely  concerned  .  .  .  .      143-147 

A  summary  of  the  teaching  as  recorded  by  the  synoptists  serves  once 
more  to  emphasise  the  importance  of  this  personal  element,  and 
leads  naturally  to  a  consideration  of        .  .  .      148,  149 

V.  The  Gospel  of  St.  John,  the  writing  of  which  was  due  to  the  desire 

to  supplement  previous  records,  and  bring  out  more  prominently 
the  imjaortance  of  the  personal  element— This  is  done  {a)  by 
insistence  on  dydirr],  as  giving  the  inner  spirit  of  the  Life,  {d)  by 
pointing  throughout  to  the  developed  doctrine  of  the  Person, 
which  is  no  longer  seen  as  the  result  of  a  gradual  revelation,  but 
as  having  been  granted  from  the  first — This  view  is  not  strictly 


SCIENCE   AND   HISTORY  107 

Page 
historical,  but  easy  to  allow  for  in  points  of  detail — Apart  from 
this  the  teaching  is  substantially  the  same  as  in  the  synoptic 
record,  and  is  similarly  grouped  round  certain  central  ideas — 

1.  The  Fatherhood  of  God  in  relation  {a)  to  Jesus  Himself  as 
the  Son  of  God  in  a  supreme  sense,  (3)  to  mankind  at  large. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  involving  (a)  the  adop- 
tion of  the  title  Son  of  Man,  (d)  the  necessity  of  suffering, 
{c)  redemption  of  men  unto  Life  Eternal — The  substitution  of 
the  idea  of  life  for  that  of  the  kingdom  is  seen  to  be  connected 
with  the  emphasis  on  personality  and  closely  related  to      .      150-162 

VI.  The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  which  it  is  impossible  to  understand 
apart  from  a  true  view  of  Jesus'  Person  and  His  personal  relation 
to  the  first  disciples  and  to  the  Church    .  .  ,      163,  164 

General  summary  and  conclusion,  pointing  to  the  supreme  importance 

for  all  time  of  the  unique  personality  of  Jesus  Christ         .     165,  166 


"  ^/E  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you 
X  free."  If  there  is  one  utterance  that  might  be 
chosen  to  express  the  faith  of  the  best  thought  of  the 
century  that  has  just  closed  it  would  be  this.  It  is  the 
summary  of  the  scientific  spirit,  so  often  represented  as 
cold,  but  possessing  in  reality  a  warmth  of  enthusiasm, 
capable,  as  has  been  shown  again  and  again,  of  the  highest 
sacrifice,  and  animated  throughout  by  the  unfaltering 
belief  that  only  in  proportion  as  you  approach  to  the 
fact  in  nature  as  it  really  is,  do  you  secure  anything 
that  is  of  value  for  the  life  of  mankind.  No  doubt  it 
is  but  a  constant  process;  no  doubt  with  every  advance 
Newton's  simile  does  but  more  obviously  apply :  "  We  are 
but  as  children  gathering  pebbles  on  the  shore."  Yet  with 
every  advance  there  comes  also  the  sense  of  something 
won  and  the  strengthened  hope  of  more  to  win :  even 
the  gatherings  of  the  shore  are  a  pledge  of  the  interest 
of  the  yet  unharvested  sea,  and  who  will  not  admit  that 
humanity  has  gained  new  strength  and  power  from  this 
new  interest  in  the  natural  world  ? 

And  in  the  sphere  of  history  that  is  not  less  true. 
There  too  as  yet  we  do  but  gather  pebbles  on  the  shore ; 
but  there   too   the   century   closed   has   given   men   new 


io8  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

methods  and  a  new  enthusiasm,  and  everywhere  the 
behef  that  only  in  proportion  as  you  come  to  see  the  event 
or  the  period  or  the  character  as  it  was,  do  you  get  to 
anything  really  valuable:  only  then  can  you,  in  the 
case  of  a  character  for  example,  separate  what  was 
unquestionably  its  own  from  what  was  merely  the  current 
coin  of  the  age,  only  in  relation  to  the  age  can  you 
determine  the  real  work  and  intention — what  was  per- 
manent and  what  was  meant  to  be  permanent — from 
what  was  necessarily  relative  and  transitory. 

It  is  some  such  belief  as  this  that  has  led,  in  recent 
years,  to  the  output  of  a  vast  mass  of  work  dealing  in 
one  form  or  another  with  the  life  of  Jesus.  The  temper 
and  purpose  of  that  work  has  been  much  misunderstood. 
It  has  been  assumed  that  it  must  be  either  apologetic 
or  heretical,  and  its  authors  have  been  canonised  or 
excommunicated  according  as  their  results  agreed  or 
disagreed  with  a  supposed  standard  of  orthodoxy.  As 
a  rule  this  was  not  a  fate,  for  good  or  evil,  that  could 
concern  them  in  their  work.  They  were  bound  to  a 
different  service.  It  was  their  purpose,  using  the  best 
historical  methods  available,  and  approaching  the  matter 
from  a  purely  historical  standpoint,  to  endeavour  to 
determine  who  Jesus  was,  what  He  taught,  what  was 
the  character  of  the  age  in  which  He  lived.  Their 
conclusions  upon  such  points  might  agree  or  disagree 
with  those  of  others :  it  was  always  open  to  those  others 
to  use  the  same  methods  to  correct  them.  And  so  the 
process  has  gone  on — a  constant  process — with  results 
upon  the  thought  of  the  time  analogous  to  the  general 
results  of  scientific  work  in  the  world  of  nature.  A 
new  spirit  is  abroad :  on  all  hands  we  are  conscious  of 
new  interest  and  new  life :  the  religious  atmosphere  has 
been  freshened  by  the  honest  and  straightforward  impulse 
to  endeavour   to   see   things  as  they  are,  and  to  follow 


HISTORY   AND   RELIGION  109 

the  argument  hopefully  whithersoever  it  may  lead.  The 
new  interest  alone  might  make  these  things  worth  while, 
but  here  as  elsewhere  new  freedom  and  new  power  have 
followed  upon  new  knowledge.  The  general  result  of 
the  work  has  been  to  create  the  impression  that  in 
presence  of  this  life  of  Jesus,  as  in  presence  of  nature, 
we  are  still  but  as  children  gathering  pebbles  on  the 
shore,  but  enough  has  been  secured  to  assure  us  of  the 
value  of  the  quest,  and  the  conviction  has  been  steadily 
gaining  ground  that  from  here,  if  from  anywhere,  from 
this  life  more  surely  known  and  better  understood,  will 
come  all  true  progress  and  all  gain  in  power  amid  our 
difficulties. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  essay  to  draw  out  in  any 
detail  the  results  achieved  by  the  great  investigators  in 
this  field.  The  most  that  can  be  hoped  for  is  that  an 
attitude  towards  these  questions  may  be  suggested  and 
that  a  brief  indication  of  what  is  being  done  may  lead 
more  people  to  study  the  works  of  these  new  religious 
historians  in  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  written,  as 
essays  or  attempts,  rather  than  as  final  statements  upon 
which  new  dogmas  may  at  once  be  based  or  by  which 
old  ones  may  be  at  once  refuted.  Without  haste  or 
rest  the  work  goes  forward,  and  none  know  better  than 
the  workers  that  the  end  is  not  yet.  In  certain  regions 
there  is  comparative  certainty  and  agreement :  in  others 
there  is  as  yet  a  ceaseless  ebb  and  flow.  A  position 
that  seemed  finally  secured  may  be  undermined  to-day, 
to  be  recovered  more  firmly  to-morrow.  Only,  while 
those  acquainted  with  the  complexity  of  the  problems 
can  view  these  changes  with  equanimity,  there  can  be 
but  little  doubt  that  they  give  rise  to  an  immense  amount 
of  misapprehension  in  the  world  at  large.  There  is  a 
vague  feeling  of  unrest  and  uncertainty.  Criticism  may 
take    away   something — this    saying   or   this    act:    it   is 


no  THE  TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

uncertain  what  it  will  ultimately  take  away;  therefore 
it  is  assumed  that  it  has  already  taken  all.  Such  an 
attitude  is  no  doubt  largely  the  result  of  ignorance :  it 
is  none  the  less  common,  and  it  is  too  often  fatal  to 
religious  life.  Let  us  say  at  once  that  it  is  wholly 
unwarranted  by  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  best 
historians  in  this  field.  These  men  have  frankly  and 
fearlessly  set  themselves  to  see  things  as  they  are  and 
to  build  upon  the  most  assured  views  of  the  original 
documents,  and  what  strikes  us  upon  an  impartial  review 
of  their  work  is  not  the  narrowness,  but  the  breadth  and 
richness  of  the  territory  that  has  been  won.  The  delimit- 
ation of  frontiers  may  still  be  incomplete,  but  within  the 
debateable  regions  there  reposes  a  far-stretching  land  in 
which  the  human  spirit  has  already  ample  room. 

In  regard  to  the  special  subject  of  this  essay,  it  is  to  be 
noticed  that  the  actual  work  of  criticism  has  necessitated 
upon  the  part  of  these  writers  a  real  attempt  to  enter  more 
deeply  into  the  character  and  personality  of  Jesus,  and  to 
present  His  teaching,  as  a  reasonable  and  connected  whole, 
in  relation  to  its  leading  ideas.  Something  that  one  or 
other  of  us  may  regret  may  have  been  omitted  by  a 
particular  author  in  deference  to  what  he  conceived  to 
be  the  dictates  of  truth  and  the  historical  spirit,  but  it 
must  be  admitted  that  what  remains  has  often  gained  in 
clearness  and  logical  consistency,  as  it  has  gained  in 
certainty.  Ambiguities  and  contradictions  that  many  have 
felt,  though  they  may  have  feared  to  give  expression  to 
their  feelings,  have  in  many  cases  been  removed  or  ex- 
plained. There  is  no  one  who  can  rise  from  reading  such 
a  book  as  Professor  Wendt's  Teaching  of  Jesus  without 
feeling,  whether  he  agree  or  disagree  with  any  particular 
conclusion,  that  we  are  here  moving  in  the  right  direction ; 
that  such  studies  in  their  devotion  to  truth  and  freedom 
are  destined  to  form  the  basis  of  the  religious  life  of  the 


i 


AUTHORITIES  in 

future ;  above  all,  that  through  them  "  that  one  Face,  far 
from  vanish,  rather  grows."  ^ 

The  work,  as  we  have  said,  is  necessarily  tentative,  and 
it  depends  at  every  point  upon  a  previous  question.  For 
it  is  quite  obvious  that  we  can  give  no  final  account  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  in  its  manifold  details  until  we  have  deter- 
mined once  for  all  the  character  and  value  of  the  records  in 
which  that  teaching  is  contained.  The  materials  for  the  solu- 
tion of  this  previous  question  have  vastly  increased  within 
the  last  few  years,  and  an  immense  amount  of  labour  has 
been  expended  on  it,  but,  though  much  has  been  secured,  no 
one  would  venture  to  maintain  that  the  conclusions  reached 
are  at  all  points  final.  The  nature  of  the  problem  has 
been  stated  elsewhere  in  this  volume.  The  purpose  of  the 
present  essay  is  to  construct  upon  the  foundations  there 
laid  a  brief  account  of  the  methods  and  teaching  of  Jesus, 
grouped  as  far  as  possible  round  the  central  ideas  of  that 
teaching,  and  based  mainly  upon  the  sources  now  generally 
admitted  to  be  the  earliest,  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Mark  and  the  so-called  Matthew  Logia,  the  collection 
of  sayings  which  would  appear  to  have  been  used,  in 
addition  to  our  present  St.  Mark,  by  the  authors  of  the 
two  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  It  is  further 
proposed  to  suggest  very  briefly  the  relation  of  the  picture 
contained  in  the  fourth  gospel  to  that  presented  by  the 
synoptists,  and  the  extent  to  which  the  leading  ideas  and 
teaching  of  that  gospel  are  in  accord  with  theirs.  The 
work  has  been  often  done  upon  a  larger  scale ;  the  present 
essay  can  in  no  sense  claim  to  be  original  or  complete. 
Its  only  object  is  to  suggest  to  others  a  possible  attitude 
towards  these  matters ;  to  lead  them  to  study  for  themselves 
the  larger  works ;  to  indicate  how  much  certainty  remains 
where  some  few  things  have  become  uncertain  ;  and  finally 
to  express  the  belief  that  criticism,  so  far  from  robbing  us, 
1  R.  Browning,  Epilogue. 


112  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

has  but  made  that  with  which  we  are  most  concerned 
rhore  living  and  more  real. 

In  any  attempt  to  formulate  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  we 
are  at  the  outset  confronted  by  a  difficulty,  due  to  the 
actual  methods  of  that  teaching,  as  the  synoptists  have 
recorded  them.  The  teaching  was  in  fact  by  no  means 
formal.  Here  and  there,  as  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  we  may  find  traces  of  a  connected  and  con- 
tinuous discourse,  but  for  the  most  part  the  teaching 
takes  the  form  of  obiter  dicta,  thrown  out  as  time  or 
occasion  suggests.  There  is  apparently  no  attempt  at 
system ;  no  one  thought  is  worked  out  or  shown  in  its 
relation  to  another;  some  of  the  most  important  matters 
are  not  those  that  are  treated  in  most  detail.  An  isolated 
passage  often  affords  the  clue  to  a  cardinal  doctrine.  In 
part  this  lack  of  form  may  be  attributed  to  the  records, 
the  gospels,  as  we  have  them,  being  probably  primarily 
books  of  devotion  or  manuals  of  instruction.  In  these 
the  time  sequence  was  not  important.  It  would  be  suffi- 
cient that  they  represented  the  words  of  the  Master. 
Continuity  and  order  were  not  of  greater  moment  than 
they  are  to  the  average  congregation  of  to-day.  At  the 
same  time,  when  full  allowance  has  been  made  for  a  certain 
breaking  up  in  transmission,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  synoptic  writers  have  to  a  great  extent  preserved  for 
us  a  true  account  of  Jesus'  methods.  Here,  rather  than 
in  the  more  elaborate  discourses  of  St.  John,  we  have  the 
teaching  in  its  original  form.  Moreover  its  fragmentary 
character  was  not  an  accident;  it  was  the  result  of  a 
reaction  against  the  tone  and  methods  of  existing 
teachers,  and  was  involved  in  a  deliberate  attempt  to 
come  in  contact  with  the  humblest  and  most  ordinary 
intelligence. 

The  prevalent  system  of  religious  thought  inevitably 
tended  to  the  exclusion  of  the  mass  of  men.     Not  merely 


METHODS   OF   CHRIST'S   TEACHING     113 

were  the  publicans  at  once  cut  off  by  their  profession  from 
the  benefits  and  privileges  of  religious  life,  but  it  was  an 
axiom  of  proud  Pharisaism  that  "this  people  which 
knoweth  not  the  law  is  cursed."  For  the  ordinary  man 
it  must  have  been  practically  impossible  that  he  should 
even  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  demands  of  so 
elaborate  a  routine,  and,  supposing  him  to  have  done  so, 
he  had  neither  the  time  nor  the  means  for  its  observance. 
Once  assume  that  religion  is  made  up  of  a  complicated 
ritual,  that  it  is  dependent  upon  regulations  in  regard  to 
victims,  washings,  garments,  clean  and  unclean  meats,  and 
the  rest,  to  say  nothing  of  a  graduated  scale  of  alms,  and 
religion  becomes  a  luxury  for  the  rich,  the  leisured  and 
privileged  class ;  the  poor,  the  workman,  the  labourer  has 
no  choice  in  such  matters.  He  must  eat  what  he  can, 
wear  what  he  can,  worship  when  and  how  he  can.  The 
motto  of  the  existing  Pharisaism  might  well  have  been, 
"  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  not  riches  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  ! "  And  if  we  assume  Him  to  have  aimed 
at  the  direct  reversal  of  that  view,  we  have  at  once  the 
clue  to  Jesus'  method  in  His  teaching.^ 

The  first  objects  of  His  mission,  as  He  proclaimed  it 
from  the  outset,  were  the  poor,  the  weary,  the  heavy-laden  : 
it  was  His  recognised  custom  to  move  freely  among  those 
who  appeared  hopelessly  unrighteous  when  tried  by  exist- 
ing standards:  and  coming  to  such  as  these  His  first 
object  was  to  address  them  in  the  language  of  their  daily 
lives.  The  teaching  at  first  sight  appears  unsystematic; 
but  the  common  mind  is  seldom  equal  to  a  system,  even 
if  it  had  time  to  master  it.  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
there  is  no  formal  reference  to  the  work  of  commentator 
or  Rabbi :  no  esoteric  or  obscure  discussion.  The  first 
appeal  is  to  nature — the  rain,  the  sun,  the  flowers,  the 
birds.     An  observation  of  these  may  afford  the  first  basis 

^  H.  J.  HoLTZMANN,  Lchrbtuh  der  Neutestamcnt :  Theol:  i.  133. 

I 


114  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

of  faith.  The  appeal  is  then  to  the  commonest  affairs  of 
daily  life,  and  it  is  here  that  the  illustrations  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  are  to  be  sought.  The  result  is  some- 
thing wholly  remarkable.  Never  surely  was  a  religious 
teacher  so  material.  From  first  to  last  we  move  in  regions 
of  hard  fact,  so  much  so  that,  as  has  been  often  shown, 
the  picture  of  contemporary  life  is  practically  complete. 
The  illustrations  are  drawn  from  all  classes  and  all  circum- 
stances. From  king  to  slave,  all  are  represented  in  their 
habit  as  they  lived,  and  they  have  been  fixed  upon  the 
canvas  by  the  unerring  hand  of  one  who,  as  an  artist 
might  say,  works  always  with  his  eye  upon  the  object. 
Of  no  classes  are  the  illustrations  so  frequent  as  of  the 
two  lowest,  the  hired  servants  and  the  slaves.  We  are 
enabled  to  see  at  a  glance  the  harshness  of  their  condition 
and  the  infinite  possibilities  of  oppression.  The  slaves 
are  beaten  with  stripes  few  or  many  at  the  will  of  the 
master,  or  often  of  the  overslave,  and  their  lot,  together 
with  that  of  the  cripples  and  beggars,  the  vagabonds  in 
the  streets,  even  the  thieves  and  robbers  and  those  con- 
demned to  crucifixion  and  imprisonment,  is  drawn  in  such 
a  way  as  to  bring  before  us  to  the  full  the  severity  of  the 
time.  These  were  among  the  facts  that  all  men  knew, 
and  it  was  through  such  facts  as  these  that  Jesus  taught. 

Nowhere  is  the  popular  tendency  of  the  teaching  so 
clearly  seen  as  in  the  parables.^  By  means  of  these  Jesus 
is  enabled  to  bring  the  whole  range  of  spiritual  experience 
into  immediate  contact  with  the  affairs  of  daily  life,  and 
within  the  compass  of  the  most  ordinary  intelligence. 
The  teaching  by  parable  is  akin  to  the  teaching  by  con- 
crete example :  "  wise  as  serpents,"  "  Satan  as  lightning," 
"  suddenly  as  a  snare."  Only  in  the  parable  the  comparison 
is  more  finished  and  detailed.  Sometimes  we  have  the 
general  rule  drawn  from  recurring  cases :  "  the  whole  have 

1  Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus  i  i.  p.  115  seq. 


THE   PARABLES  115 

no  need  of  the  physician  "  ;  "  can  the  children  of  the  bride- 
chamber  fast  ?  "  ;  "  do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns  or  figs 
of  thistles  ? "  Sometimes  the  single  instance  is  given  as 
it  occurred  under  certain  definite  circumstances.  The 
comparison  is  imaginative,  but  it  is  everywhere  true  to 
the  conditions  and  possibilities  of  life.  There  is  no  need 
to  give  examples ;  such  stories  as  those  of  the  Prodigal 
Son,  the  Good  Samaritan,  the  Ten  Virgins,  the  Unjust 
Steward  have  become  part  of  the  common  intellectual 
heritage  of  the  world. 

The  real  character  of  these  stories,  as  well  as  of  the  mode 
of  teaching  to  which  they  belong,  has  been  much  obscured 
by  allegorical  methods  of  interpretation.  Attempts  have 
been  often  made  to  press  the  comparison  into  every  detail. 
As  a  rule  it  is  impossible  to  do  this.  The  analogy  between 
the  new  point  to  be  enforced  and  the  familiar  example  often 
holds  only  in  one  important  particular.  In  interpretation  it 
is  the  main  thought  to  which  attention  must  be  directed. 
The  rest  is  but  subordinate  to  that.  The  minor  characters 
are  often  essential  to  the  picture,  not  to  the  comparison, 
and  to  lay  too  much  stress  on  them  is  to  miss  the  whole 
purpose  of  this  mode  of  teaching.  For  in  fact,  though 
the  parallel  may  not  hold  in  every  detail,  yet  the  rest  of 
the  story  is  not  wasted.  Thus  far  the  old  allegorising 
commentators  were  in  the  right.  So  much  the  more  of 
life  and  of  the  world  is  brought  within  the  spiritual  region. 
Mercy,  pardon,  justice,  energy,  watchfulness,  development, 
progress — these  are  shown  in  these  illustrations,  not  as 
far-away  aspirations  of  a  new  and  distant  kingdom,  but 
as  already  existing,  however  imperfectly,  in  the  world  of 
common  things.  Every  detail  in  these  pictures  is  im- 
portant, and  was  meant  to  be  important,  as  adding  to  the 
sense  of  reality ;  it  is  not  important  for  purposes  of  com- 
parison. The  unjust  judge  is  not  God,  nor  is  the  lord  who 
commends  the  unjust   steward.      These   are  but   details. 


ii6  THE  TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

Importunity  in  the  one  case,  prudent  forethought  in  the 
other,  these  are  the  points  to  be  enforced  by  the  two 
parables,  and  they  are  expressed  in  a  way  that  was  sure 
to  appeal  to  the  lowliest  and  the  humblest.  The  teaching 
of  the  time  had  become  abstract,  esoteric,  remote  from 
daily  life ;  in  His  parables  and  comparisons  Jesus  made  a 
deliberate  return  to  what  was  simple  and  intelligible. 

But  amid  all  the  wealth  of  illustration  which  at  first 
sight  imparts  so  fragmentary  a  character  to  the  teaching, 
it  is  important  to  notice  that  no  single  feature  in  the 
picture  of  contemporary  life  is  introduced  merely  for 
itself.  In  the  Teacher's  mind  the  fragmentary  and 
occasional  utterance  is  always  related  to  the  general  idea 
and  every  detail  is  closely  welded  into  the  religious 
system  as  a  whole.  It  is  here  precisely  as  with  nature. 
We  find  ourselves  in  a  world  of  particulars,  amid  which 
it  is  often  hard  to  disentangle  the  underlying  principle 
and  general  law.  Yet  to  do  this  is  essential  to  real  know- 
ledge. At  its  first  appearance,  in  spite  of  its  apparent 
popularity,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  had  yet  its  esoteric  side, 
though  in  a  wholly  different  sense  from  the  teaching  of  the 
scribes.  It  is  a  claim  that  is  in  fact  made  for  it  by  Jesus 
Himself.  It  is  true  that  everyone  who  heard  Him  must 
have  felt,  however  vaguely,  that  tidings  thus  expressed  in 
common  language  were  for  all ;  that  religion,  if  this  were 
religion,  had  indeed  been  brought  down  to  earth.  Won 
by  His  simplicity  and  authority,  the  common  people 
heard  Him  gladly.  It  was  none  the  less  easy  to  miss 
the  whole  import  of  the  message.  Many  of  the  parables, 
as  we  know,  could  not  be  understood  in  their  full  bearing 
by  the  audiences  to  which  they  were  first  addressed,  and 
certain  of  the  most  important  doctrines  were  for  a  time 
similarly  veiled.  The  exposition  was  reserved  for  those 
whose  devotion  was  assured,  and  was  purposely  withheld 
from  others  who  might,  and  in  some  cases  were  bound 


THE   PERSONAL   ELEMENT  117 

to  misunderstand.  The  necessity  of  this  course  becomes 
clear  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  many  of  the  underlying 
ideas  of  the  teaching  were  such  as  in  a  purely  material 
sense  had  long  been  known  to  the  hearers,  and  that  to 
transfer  them  into  the  spiritual  region  was  a  task  requiring 
time  and  patient  guidance.  Progress  in  spiritual  matters 
is,  for  the  mass  of  men,  necessarily  slow.  But  there  is 
yet  a  further  point.  For,  as  we  shall  presently  see  more 
clearly,  not  merely  this  mass  of  detail,  but  the  general 
ideas  themselves  to  which  this  is  primarily  related,  and 
which  underlie  the  teaching  of  the  parables,  are  at  every 
point  made  to  centre  in  a  living  personality.  "  Blessed  is 
he  whosoever  shall  not  be  offended  in  Me."  To  miss  this 
almost  indefinable  personal  element  is  for  us,  as  for  the 
men  of  that  day,  to  miss  all. 

In  the  synoptic  record  the  importance  of  this  personal 
element  is  brought  before  us  with  great  clearness.  We 
are  enabled  to  see  at  a  glance  how  vividly  for  his  con- 
temporaries Jesus'  mode  of  life  and  personality,  together 
with  the  general  atmosphere  of  His  teaching,  stood  out  in 
contrast  with  those  of  all  previous  teachers.  To  no  one, 
humanly  speaking,  did  Jesus  owe  more  than  to  St.  John  the 
Baptist ;  yet  from  an  early  period  in  His  ministry  He  is 
careful  to  point  out  to  His  disciples  the  inherent  difference 
of  their  respective  messages.  John  came  in  the  way 
of  righteousness.  The  law  that  He  taught  was  new  and 
searching,  but  it  was  still  the  legal  path.  There  was  none 
greater  than  John  born  of  woman,  but  the  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  was  greater  than  he.  Of  all  that  was 
involved  in  the  new  gospel  of  the  kingdom  in  free  and 
joyous  dependence  upon  God,  John  and  his  disciples 
could  have  no  idea.  The  disciples  of  John  fasted,  as 
the  Pharisees  fasted,  as  a  point  of  legai  and  meritorious 
duty.  The  Son  of  Man  came  eating  and  drinking;  His 
disciples  are  as  the  children  of  the  bridechamber ;  in  the 


ii8  THE  TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

joy  of  His  companionship  and  His  teaching  there  is  no 
room  for  simulated  sorrow.  Presently  there  would  be  real 
grief  and  separation,  and  for  that  fasting  in  the  solitude 
of  the  chamber  would  be  the  natural  expression,  as  the 
tears  of  St.  Peter  were  the  natural  sign  of  a  genuine  re- 
pentance. Mingling  with  the  world,  eating  with  publicans 
and  sinners,  the  new  Teacher  presented  a  striking  contrast 
to  the  asceticism  of  the  Baptist,  and  one  that  was  wholly 
unintelligible  to  those  whose  prejudice  prevented  them 
from  reaching  the  secret  of  His  freedom. 

More  striking  still  to  the  popular  view  was  the  contrast 
between  the  freedom  and  high  confidence  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  and  the  gloomy  scrupulousness  of  the  scribes 
alike  in  matters  of  conduct  and  of  thought.  The  words 
"  take  no  thought "  (jjctj  fiepiixvare)  are  usfed  in  a  well-known 
passage ;  they  are  expressive  of  an  all-pervading  tone— the 
result  of  a  clear  and  steady  vision  of  the  world  and  of  God. 
There  is  in  Jesus  the  purity  of  heart  that  really  sees, 
and  from  the  inward  vision  passes  at  once  to  judgment 
and  to  action.  There  have  been  those  that  have  found 
traces  of  the  Greek  joyousness  and  sense  of  beauty  in 
Jesus'  teaching,  and  have  looked  for  some  influence  upon 
Him  of  Greek  life  in  the  cities  of  northern  Palestine. 
Such  influences  can  nowhere  definitely  be  traced,  but  the 
joy  and  confidence  and  sense  of  beauty  are  all  found  in 
Him  in  the  fullest  sense,  born  of  a  faith  that  the  Greek  did 
not  and  could  not  know.  It  is  this  steadiness  of  outlook 
that  imparts  its  general  tone  and  character  to  the  teaching, 
and  it  is  a  character  so  definite  that,  in  regard  to  much  that 
has  been  preserved,  the  internal  evidence  of  genuineness  is 
of  quite  exceptional  force.  "Never  man  spoke  like  this 
man "  was  the  verdict  of  the  time,  and  of  many  of  the 
sayings,  even  were  the  external  evidence  weaker  than  it  is, 
we  could  yet  feel  a  deep  assurance  that  they  are  no  late 
product   of  the  consciousness   of  the   Church,  but  must 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  119 

belong  to  Jesus  and  no  other,  so  strong  is  the  impress 
of  His  personality  and  manner.  Is  it  an  answer  to  an 
entangling  question  ?  Is  it  a  discourse  ?  Is  it  a  problem 
or  example  drawn  from  the  previous  history  of  the  Jews  ? 
Everywhere  there  is  the  same  spontaneity  born  of  the  same 
steadiness  of  view.  To  the  followers  in  the  hour  of  their 
trial  the  charge  is  still  to  "  take  no  previous  thought "  (fxri 
TrpojuLepijuLvare),]  but  to  do  this  is  not  easy,  requiring,  in  fact, 
the  same  faith  and  confidence  as  characterised  the  Master. 

Nowhere  is  this  impress  of  personality  and  this  distinc- 
tive freedom  of  tone,  with  all  that  it  implied,  more  clearly 
seen  than  in  the  general  handling  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  interpretation  of  the  ancient  law. 
There  is  a  wide  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
of  the  chief  events  and  characters  of  the  national  history, 
such  as  a  Galilean  boy  might  no  doubt  be  able  to 
acquire  to  a  large  extent  in  the  schools  of  the  scribes. 
There  is  an  obvious  acquaintance  with  the  apocalyptic 
literature  so  much  in  fashion  at  the  time.  There  is  a 
constant  appeal  to  the  written  book :  "  Have  ye  not 
read?"  Jesus  Himself,  "as  His  custom  was,"  reads  the 
book  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth.  But  the  important 
thing  to  notice  is  how,  amid  all  this,  the  speaker  moves 
with  the  confidence  of  perfect  mastery,  everywhere  adopt- 
ing the  original  thought  or  historical  example,  sometimes 
in  a  wholly  unexpected  sense,  and  making  it  entirely  His 
own.  The  Old  Testament  books  are  quoted  under  their 
traditional  titles.  To  have  quoted  them  under  any  others, 
even  supposing  the  real  authors  to  have  been  known, 
would  have  been  alien  to  the  whole  character  of  the 
teaching,  addressed  as  we  have  seen  simply  and  directly  to 
the  common  people  in  their  common  language. 

In  the  handling  of  the  ancient  law  there  is  the  same 
freedom  of  selection  and  interpretation  combined  with  the 
utmost  reverence.     We  are  in  presence  of  a  new  order, 


120  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

in  which  all  that  is  of  value  in  the  old  is  to  be  absorbed. 
"  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John :  since  then 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  all  men  press  into 
it."  The  worth  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  fully  recognised,  and 
those  who  did  not  heed  it  will  not  be  persuaded  by  a 
newer  revelation.  The  mission  of  Jesus  is  not  one  of 
destruction,  but  of  fulfilment ;  no  jot  or  tittle  of  the 
ancient  law  should  fail.  Only  it  must  be  realised  that 
the  law  did  not  and  could  not  speak  the  final  word.  The 
principle  underlying  its  observances  is  to  be  grasped  and 
expressed  in  ever-widening  obligation.  "  The  men  of  old 
time  "  had  been  right  enough  in  regard  to  the  kind  of  con- 
duct that  they  prescribed ;  only  of  late  men  had  lost  sight 
of  the  searching  character  of  the  demand  for  inner  purity 
of  heart,  from  which  alone  all  else  must  spring,  as  the 
fruit  upon  the  tree  follows  upon  its  nature.  The  heart 
is  the  source  of  all  conduct ;  the  state  of  the  heart  deter- 
mines once  for  all  the  character  of  the  act.  The  new 
revelation  was  one  of  infinite  demand  upon  the  disciple  in 
response  to  infinite  sacrifice  in  the  Master  and  infinite  love 
in  the  God  whom  He  revealed.  Love  to  God  and  man 
is  the  sole  motive,  and  it  is  an  axiom  of  love  that  it  does 
not  stop  to  ask  how  little  it  can  give,  but  at  once  and 
ungrudgingly  gives  all. 

The  whole  tone  of  the  teaching  was  in  marked  contrast 
with  the  pedantry  of  existing  methods.  If  its  demands 
were  wider,  its  sympathy  was  immeasurably  deeper.  Born, 
as  we  have  seen,  of  infinite  pity  for  those  multitudes  for 
whom  the  existing  religious  teaching  was  necessarily  an 
alien  thing,  and  who  appeared  as  sheep  not  having  a 
shepherd,  the  new  system  did  not  consist  merely  of  a  new 
set  of  moral  commands,  which,  as  modern  writers  too 
often  present  them,  have  no  authority,  and  therefore  will 
not  be  obeyed,  or  which,  human  nature  being  what  it  is, 
could  but  serve,  as  St.  Paul  saw,  to  condemn  the  world 


THE  ANCIENT   LAW  I2l 

and  not  to  save  it.  As  is  so  clearly  brought  out  by  one 
of  those  supplementary  pairs  of  parables,  which  form  such 
a  characteristic  feature  in  the  teaching  as  it  works  towards 
truth  from  every  side,  this  was  not  merely  a  new  morality 
— a  few  extra  commands — patched  on  to  the  Mosaic  law, 
increasing  its  burdensomeness  and  adding  to  its  difficulty. 
The  new  morality  was  contained  in  the  new  bottles  of  a 
new  life,  and  involved  a  new  philosophy  and  new  con- 
victions in  regard  to  God  and  all  God's  dealings  with  the 
world.  The  moral  teaching  of  Jesus  was  based,  and  must 
still  be  based,  upon  certain  leading  ideas,  present  to  the 
mind  of  the  Teacher  in  every  fragmentary  utterance  and 
imparting  to  the  whole  a  wonderful  unity  amid  much 
diversity  and  apparent  contradiction.  Above  all,  as  con- 
temporaries felt  and  as  they  have  so  clearly  shown,  the 
whole  system  centred  in  the  living  personality  of  One, 
whose  teaching  was  with  authority,  who  claimed  a  reason- 
able lordship  over  tradition,  who  provoked  amazement 
most  of  all  by  His  power  and  by  the  width  and  freedom 
of  His  views.  The  contrast  of  all  this  with  the  humble 
origin  and  humble  guise  was,  as  we  may  well  believe, 
infinitely  striking  at  the  time.  For  us  the  danger  is  the 
common  danger  of  an  analytic  age.  We  may  attain 
the  utmost  precision  in  regard  to  some  particular  point 
of  interpretation  or  of  doctrine ;  we  are  apt  to  be  deficient 
in  the  imagination  or  the  faith  which  leads  into  the  actual 
presence  of  the  Teacher.  It  is  on  this  account  that  so 
much  is  due  to  the  new  school  of  religious  historians. 
Writing  without  preconceptions  and  treating  the  subject  as 
pure  history,  they  have  not  merely  shown  us  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  as  a  system,  but  as  a  system  that  cannot  be 
separated  from  the  living  personality  of  Jesus  Himself. 

Among  those  who  have  thus  endeavoured  to  present 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  a  systematic  form,  there  has  been 
some  discussion  with  regard  to  the  true  order  of  presenta- 


122  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

tion.  The  difficulty  has  always  been  to  decide  which  of 
the  great  central  ideas  should  stand  first.  It  is  a  difficulty 
that  is  at  once  explained,  if  we  remember  how  closely  and 
inseparably  these  ideas  were  interwoven  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus  Himself.  If  we  begin  where  He  Himself 
began  with  the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  we  shall 
find,  so  intimately  are  all  the  ideas  connected,  that  this  will 
at  once  involve  a  consideration  of  the  new  doctrine  of 
righteousness  and  the  new  revelation,  of  God. 

In  His  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  Jesus  attached 
Himself,  as  was  His  wont,  to  the  traditional  teaching  of 
His  nation.  Here,  as  always,  He  appears  as  the  scribe 
bringing  out  of  His  treasure  things  new  and  old.  The 
conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  an  old  one  in 
Jewish  thought,  and  it  was  one  that  had  been  developed 
upon  various  lines.  The  particular  form  of  it  to  which 
Jesus  recurred  is  probably  that  given  in  the  second  chapter 
of  the  book  of  Daniel :  "  The  God  of  Heaven  will  set  up 
a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  and  this  king- 
dom shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these  kingdoms, 
and  it  shall  stand  for  ever."  The  idea  of  that  passage  had 
proved  peculiarly  attractive  to  later  Judaism  amid  the 
downfall  of  the  national  hopes.  All  the  national  ideals 
came  to  be  regarded  as  continuously  existing  in  heaven, 
ready  to  be  revealed  on  earth,  and,  though  for  the  moment 
earthly  powers  and  kingdoms  might  prevail,  presently  all 
things  would  pass  under  the  dominion  of  the  God  of 
Heaven,  who  was  the  special  protector  of  the  Jews.  As 
a  consequence,  the  earthly  establishment  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  would  ensure  a  lasting  prosperity  to  the  Jewish 
nation,  or  at  any  rate  to  the  righteous  portion  of  it. 

In  spite  of  certain  material  tendencies,  it  is  the  chief  glory 
of  this  people  that  in  all  their  literature,  at  all  periods  of 
their  history,  they  consistently  held  to  the  definition  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  kingdom  of  righteousness.     The 


THE   KINGDOM   OF  GOD  123 

condition  of  entry  into  the  kingdom  of  a  righteous  God 
lay  in  obedience  to  His  righteous  law.  Only  in  the  times 
immediately  preceding  the  age  of  Jesus,  owing  to  a  variety 
of  causes  upon  which  we  have  no  space  to  dwell,  the 
ancient  law,  as  Moses  had  delivered  it  and  the  prophets 
had  interpreted  it,  had  become  overlaid  with  an  elaborate 
system  of  tradition,  extending  to  every  department  and 
detail  of  life  and  demanding  observance  in  its  most  minute 
particulars,  so  that  the  act  had  become  important  and  not 
the  spirit,  and  the  righteousness  which  God's  kingdom  was 
now  supposed  to  require  appeared  but  as  a  petty  legal 
righteousness,  for  which,  as  a  matter  of  course,  God  would 
pay  on  a  fixed  and  rigorous  scale.  On  all  hands  daily  life, 
whether  secular  or  religious,  had  become  converted  into 
a  dull  routine  of  uninspired  tasks :  tithings  of  mint  and 
anise  and  cummin,  new  moons  and  Sabbaths,  and  the 
rest.  It  was  the  observance  of  such  as  these  in  place  of 
the  great  broad  judgments  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  that 
was  now  deemed  to  be  the  essential  condition  of  admis- 
sion to  God's  kingdom.  Little  by  little  out  of  a  false 
reverence  men  had  separated  God  from  the  world ;  this 
elaborated  law  alone  was  left  as  a  means  of  communica- 
tion with  Him.  What  wonder  if  in  such  an  atmosphere 
life  and  religion  lost  the  freshness  and  inspiration  of  an 
earlier  time  or  that  the  spirits  of  men — real  men  like 
St.  Paul — chafed  and  groaned  under  the  burden?  Many 
of  the  questions  addressed  to  Jesus  reveal  the  dissatisfac- 
tion that  was  abroad,  though  all  who  inquired  might  not 
be  willing  to  accept  the  sweeping  conditions  of  His 
reform. 

For  Jesus,  as  for  the  older  teachers,  righteousness  was 
the  condition  of  entry  into  the  kingdom  of  a  righteous 
God.  He  begins  His  preaching  with  a  call  to  repentance 
and  a  very  practical  review  of  daily  duties.  Only  the  whole 
conception  of  duty  was  changed.     The  new  righteousness 


124  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

was  before  all  no  matter  of  mere  external  observance, 
waiting  upon  the  approbation  or  the  judgment  of  men. 
It  was  an  affair  of  the  heart,  deep  and  inward.  In  word 
and  act  it  flowed  from  within,  and  the  sole  concern  of  life 
was  shown  to  lie  in  the  relation  of  the  individual  soul  to 
a  Father  who  seeth  in  secret,  and  whose  concern  with  the 
world  and  the  affairs  of  men  is  everywhere  close  and 
intimate.  It  has  become  common  to  represent  Jesus  as 
a  mere  moral  reformer,  and  His  preaching  of  the  kingdom 
as  a  mere  forward  step  in  an  evolutionary  moral  process. 
A  moral  reformer  He  indeed  was ;  but  the  new  righteous- 
ness that  He  taught  was  but  the  simple  and  necessary 
consequence  of  a  new  and  living  theology  imparting  to 
the  moral  teaching  all  its  character  and  all  its  force. 

The  foundation  of  the  moral  teaching,  as  indeed  of  all 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  is  to  be  found  in  the  great  doctrine 
of  the  Father-God.  This  idea  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God 
was  not  new:  it  had  been  employed  long  since  in  Jewish 
thought  to  describe  God's  relation  to  His  people.  "  When 
Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  son 
out  of  Egypt"  (Hosea  xi.  i).  "Have  we  not  all  one 
Father  ?  hath  not  God  created  us  ?  "  (Mai.  xi.  lo).  "  Doubt- 
less thou  art  our  Father,  O  Lord :  thou  art  our  Father, 
our  redeemer:  Thy  name  is  from  everlasting"  (Isa. 
Ixiii.  i6).  Such  are  among  the  best -known  passages, 
but  they  can  only  be  regarded  as  fragmentary  and  occa- 
sional. With  Jesus  the  suggestion  that  they  contain 
becomes  the  cardinal  truth  of  all  the  teaching.  Here,  as 
elsewhere,  by  the  time  the  public  ministry  commences 
whatever  had  been  borrowed  in  the  conception  had  been 
appropriated  in  a  new  and  wholly  original  sense.  The 
belief  appears  as  the  product  of  the  inner  consciousness 
following  the  suggestions  of  the  outward  world  and  clinging 
to  "the  sunnier  side"  of  these  in  perfect  faith.  Besides 
the  inward  assurance,  outward  signs  of  the  love  of  God 


GOD   THE   FATHER  125 

were  to  be  seen  in  the  clothing  of  the  lih'es,  in  the  rain  that 
falls  upon  the  just  and  upon  the  unjust,  in  the  care  that 
extends  even  to  the  sparrows.  If  later  Jewish  thought 
out  of  a  false  reverence  had  separated  God  from  the  world, 
and  left  the  law  as  the  only  means  of  communication  with 
Him,  the  thought  of  Jesus  saw  God  working  everywhere 
in  nature  and  in  life.  His  presence  and  care  are  realised 
with  a  fulness  that  even  St.  Paul  could  not  reach,  and  it  is 
worth  while  to  contrast  the  teaching  of  Master  and  disciple 
in  a  single  significant  passage :  "  Doth  God  show  care  for 
oxen  ? "  asks  St.  Paul.  "  Not  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground 
without  your  Father,"  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Every- 
where is  to  be  seen  the  Father-God,  whether  in  the 
outward  world  or  in  the  depths  of  the  human  soul.  It  is 
this  one  thought  that  forms  the  basis  of  all  the  teaching, 
whether  in  regard  to  power  in  life,  to  hope  and  courage 
in  life,  to  gifts  in  life,  to  sin  and  forgiveness,  to  all  the 
dealings  of  man  with  God  or  man  with  man.  The 
disciples  are  to  regard  themselves  as  members  of  one 
family,  related  to  God  as  children  to  a  father,  who  only 
gives  good  gifts  to  them  that  ask  Him.  While  this  ideal 
of  sonship — "  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father"; 
"be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  in  heaven 
is  perfect " — becomes  the  final  motive  of  all  loving  action, 
extending  even  to  the  ungrateful  and  the  unworthy. 

Nor  was  this  pervading  faith  in  God's  love  merely 
the  superficial  view  of  an  optimistic  nature.  It  was 
tried  amid  all  the  storm  and  stress  of  suffering  and  of 
life.  To  the  very  last,  in  spite  of  all  contrary  seeming, 
it  is  still  clung  to  and  maintained,  and  in  the  hour  of 
deepest  anguish  the  word  used  is  still  "Abba,  Father," 
the  evangelist  seeming  to  dwell  upon  the  original  utterance 
as  upon  a  precious  memory,  to  which  he  would  here  give 
its  full  significance.  There  are  indications  of  like  stress 
and  trial  upon  other  occasions,  as  perhaps  on  that  of  the 


126  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

retirement  to  the  desert  upon  the  tidings  of  the  death 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist.  But  the  great  faith  in  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  never  wavers.  It  was  the  foundation 
of  Jesus'  whole  system,  and  it  was  a  foundation  deeply 
laid  and  hardly  tested. 

We  might  perhaps  have  expected  that  such  a  belief 
would  lead  to  a  more  indulgent  view  of  the  government 
of  the  world  than  had  been  given  in  the  old  Jewish 
teaching.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  exact  opposite  is  the 
case.  So  far  from  there  being  any  weakening  of  the 
sense  of  sin  or  guilt,  the  horror  of  these  is  infinitely 
increased  in  the  light  in  which  they  are  now  shown. 
For  the  God  against  whom  every  offence  is  committed 
is  no  longer  seen  as  One  who  separates  Himself  from 
the  unclean  and  is  concerned  with  them  as  little  as  a 
righteous  Jew  would  be.  Rather  He  is  a  God  of  infinite 
condescension  and  infinite  love :  He  extends  His  care 
even  to  those  who  are  evil,  debtors,  sinners :  He  seeks 
the  lost :  His  angels  rejoice  over  the  repentant,  and, 
like  the  father  of  the  prodigal  son,  He  Himself  sees 
the  penitent  while  they  are  yet  a  great  way  off.  In  pro- 
portion to  the  greatness  of  this  love,  the  more  terrible  ap- 
pears its  rejection  and  the  wilful  neglect  of  its  commands. 
For  not  one  of  those  commands  is  merely  arbitrary: 
they  are  one  and  all  the  direct  expression  of  God's 
nature,  so  that  to  neglect  them  is  at  once  to  sever  oneself 
from  God.  The  moral  code,  as  Jesus  taught  it,  is  simply 
the  declaration  of  God's  love  and  care  for  men.  Even 
the  Sabbath  is  seen  as  no  mere  arbitrary  ordinance,  but 
an  ordinance  of  love,  *'made  for  man,"  so  that  its  true 
observance  is  an  observance  of  love  and  includes  the 
service  of  other  men.  Love  to  God  and  service  to  God 
as  the  Father  are  wholly  impossible  apart  from  the  love 
and  service  of  those  whom  God  loves  as  His  children. 
It  is  His  will  that  "not  one  of  these  little  ones  should 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  127 

perish,"  so  that  to  act  against  them,  or  to  fail  to  act 
for  them,  is  to  incur  the  grave  peril  of  severing  oneself 
from  God  and  His  loving  will.  Sin  thus  appears  not 
merely  as  an  offence  against  God's  law :  it  is  the 
direct  act  of  severance  from  God's  love.  The  sense  of 
guilt  is  the  sense  of  having  incurred  such  separation : 
"  I  am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son."  When 
once  the  true  nature  of  sin  is  realised,  the  vehemence  of 
Jesus'  warnings  against  lack  of  charity  is  fully  explained. 
In  His  view  the  idea  of  God  as  the  supreme  moral 
force  is  inseparably  bound  up  with  the  idea  of  God  as 
a  Father.  Sin  is  the  practical  denial  of  that  faith  which 
inevitably  worketh  by  love,  and  the  end  of  sin  is  that 
outer  darkness  which  typifies  severance  from  the  love  of 
God. 

In  Jesus'  view  of  the  government  of  the  world  there 
is  nothing  superficial,  nothing  merely  indulgent.  In  spite 
of  suffering,  in  spite  of  the  reality  of  sin  and  failure 
the  belief  in  God's  fatherhood  must  be  maintained.  For 
Jesus,  as  for  the  Church  that  followed  Him,  the  broad 
view  of  the  world  as  under  this  loving  governance  is 
the  source  of  all  life  and  all  achievement.  "  If  thou  canst 
believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  them  that  believe.'* 
"  If  ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  then  should 
ye  say  to  this  mountain,  be  thou  plucked  up  and  be 
thou  planted  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  it  should  obey 
you."  In  this  and  other  passages  equally  paradoxical 
it  is  clear  that  the  detailed  promise  is  not  to  be  taken 
literally :  the  idea  is  that  one  who  rested  securely  in  the 
loving  power  of  God  would  see  all  things  granted  so 
far  as  might  be  expedient.  The  whole  teaching  in  regard 
to  prayer  is  governed  by  this  conception  of  faith.  The 
efficacy  of  prayer  is  not  to  be  measured  by  the  granting 
or  refusal  of  some  particular  request :  rather  must  we  take 
the  wider  view,  and  consider  that  he  who  prays  in  faith 


128  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

at  once  sets  himself  in  harmony  with  the  will  of  God 
and  has  the  power  of  that  will  upon  his  side.  "  Believe 
that  ye  receive  your  requests  and  ye  shall  receive  them." 
"Shall  He  not  much  more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith?  " 

Without  dealing  with  the  miracles  in  detail,  it  may  be 
noticed  how  many  of  them  are  dependent  upon  the 
existence  or  restoration  of  a  state  of  faith  in  the  subject. 
"Be  not  afraid,  only  believe";  "According  to  thy  faith 
be  it  unto  thee " ;  "  How  is  it  that  ye  have  no  faith  ? " 
While  sometimes,  in  addition  to  this  belief  in  the  power 
and  love  of  God,  the  faith  needed  is  shown  as  a  belief 
in  Jesus  as  representing  that  power  and  love:  "Believe 
ye  that  I  am  able  to  do  this  ? "  We  may  add  that  this 
faith  in  Jesus  is  intimately  bound  up  with  conduct :  "  Why 
call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  that  I  say  ?  " 

This  view  of  faith  as  representing  the  attitude  of  the 
whole  soul  to  God  and  imparting  an  entirely  new  character 
to  life  is  essential  to  any  understanding  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  in  all  its  manifold  presentation  in  Jesus'  teaching. 
Sometimes  that  kingdom  appears  as  the  highest  good  for 
the  individual  soul :  the  treasure  hid  in  a  field,  the  pearl 
of  great  price,  only  to  be  secured  by  diligent  and  un- 
wavering devotion.  Sometimes  it  is  the  great  reward  of 
life  in  a  sense  wholly  different  to  anything  imagined  by 
contemporary  Jewish  thought.  In  the  wide  spiritual 
region  to  which  we  are  here  conducted  the  proportional 
payment  for  separate  services  is  inconceivable — as  in- 
conceivable in  fact  as  the  estimate  of  prayer  according 
to  the  attainment  of  the  particular  request.  The  coming 
of  the  kingdom  into  the  heart  is  in  fact  its  own  reward, 
whether  it  come  after  one  hour's  labour  or  after  the  burden 
and  heat  of  the  day.  The  particular  service  and  its  reward 
are  lost  in  a  vast  ideal  view.  And  when  all  is  said  there 
can  be  no  talk  of  merit.  The  standard  of  perfection  is 
infinitely   high,  and   when    we    have    done   our    best    to 


THE   KINGDOM   AS   A   SOCIETY         129 

approach  to  it  we  remain  unprofitable  servants.  Every- 
thing connected  with  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  is 
the  gift  of  God,  who  may  do  what  He  will  with  His 
own.  Something  is  due  to  man's  own  effort :  the  violent 
take  the  kingdom  by  force ;  but  on  the  other  hand  such 
allusions  as  "  for  the  elect's  sake  "  (Matt.  xxiv.  22)  suggest 
the  contrast  between  personal  effort  and  imparted  grace 
that  has  always  been  present  to  religious  thought:  only, 
as  Jesus  taught,  faith  itself  solves  all  such  difficulties: 
"  Fear  not,  little  flock,  it  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure  to 
give  you  the  kingdom." 

From  this  view  of  the  kingdom  as  a  state  of  the  indi- 
vidual soul  we  pass  to  the  view  of  it  as  a  society  made  up 
of  those  who  enjoy  that  state.  The  two  views  are  not 
kept  distinct,  but  some  of  the  parables  and  illustrations 
incline  to  one,  some  to  the  other,  while  some  combine  the 
two.  It  has  been  a  matter  of  dispute  as  to  how  far  and 
in  what  sense  Jesus  in  His  teaching  in  regard  to  the 
kingdom  of  God  looked  forward  to  the  establishment  of 
the  Church  as  an  organised  society.  The  actual  term 
€KK\ri(rla  is  found  ascribed  to  Him  only  in  two  passages 
from  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  authority  of  both  of  which 
many  critics  are  inclined  to  suspect.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  was  His  purpose  to  gather  round  Him  a 
band  of  followers  enjoying  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom 
themselves,  and  making  it  their  duty,  at  whatever  risk  of 
unpopularity  and  danger,  to  extend  those  blessings  to 
others :  they  are  to  be  the  salt  of  the  earth :  the  leaven 
leavening  the  lump.  On  the  other  hand,  in  attempting 
to  determine  any  question  of  contemplated  organisation 
there  are  certain  points  that  must  constantly  be  kept  in 
view.  There  is  strong  reason  to  suppose  that  Jesus 
did  not  specially  direct  the  attention  of  His  followers 
towards  any  distant  future.  The  followers,  at  any  rate, 
looked  for  a  speedy  establishment  of  the  kingdom  and  an 


130  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

immediate  return  of  Jesus  Himself.  And  even  were  it 
not  so,  is  it  not  clear  that  any  such  detailed  instruction 
in  organisation  would  have  been  wholly  alien  to  the 
general  spirit  of  the  teaching?  Rather  would  such  in- 
struction appear  to  lie  among  the  things  that  would  be 
added  to  those  who  sought  first  the  kingdom  of  God, 
together  with  a  right  judgment  upon  the  details  of 
politics  and  of  social  life.  The  teaching  in  this  respect 
is  marked  by  extraordinary  judgment  and  reserve ;  there 
is  the  fullest  and  most  profound  guidance  in  principle, 
combined  with  a  freedom  in  regard  to  detail  that  allows 
for  the  possibility  of  growth  in  every  variety  of  circum- 
stance. Once  let  the  true  principle  be  accepted,  and  all 
else  will  flow  from  it  as  naturally  as  water  from  the 
spring. 

Was  the  kingdom  present  or  future?  Was  it  of  this 
world,  or  of  that  which  is  to  come  ?  The  solution  to  such 
questions  again  will  only  be  found  if  we  keep  the  general 
point  of  view  constantly  in  mind.  Parables  like  those  of 
the  mustard  seed  or  the  leaven,  or  the  seed  that  grows 
in  secret,  represent  the  spread  of  the  kingdom  as  a  process 
whether  in  the  world  or  in  the  individual  heart.  Parables 
like  those  of  the  draw-net  or  the  wheat  and  tares — both  of 
which,  like  the  term  iKKXrja-la,  occur  only  in  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Matthew,  imply  a  society  existing  not  in  a  pure 
ideal  state,  but  under  the  confusion  and  difficulty  of 
earthly  conditions.  Sometimes,  as  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ministry,  the  kingdom  is  proclaimed  as  at  hand ;  some- 
times it  is  regarded  as  already  present :  the  poor  already 
possess  it:  there  is  no  need  to  pay  regard  when  we  are 
called  to  look  for  it  here  or  there,  "for  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  within  you." 

In  all  this  there  is  no  real  ambiguity  or  contradiction 
when  once  we  take  our  stand  at  what  is  everywhere  the 
main  point  of  view.     There  may  be  religious  progress  for 


I 


LIFE   ETERNAL  131 

the  individual  soul :  there  may  be  a  spread  of  the  kingdom 
among  the  mass  of  mankind  culminating  in  its  triumphant 
revelation  at  the  return  of  the  Son  of  Man :  but  in  the 
kingdom  itself  there  is  no  change  nor  progress,  any  more 
than  there  is  change  or  progress  in  the  Being  and  Char- 
acter of  God.  The  kingdom  is  God's :  its  members  are 
God's,  and  they  are  His  unchangeably  and  for  ever. 

It  is  this  final  thought  that  in  all  Jesus'  teaching 
illumines  the  mystery  that  surrounds  man's  final  destiny. 
Membership  of  the  kingdom  and  life  appear  in  that  teach- 
ing as  practically  identical.  "To  have  life,"  "to  inherit 
life,"  "  the  righteous  into  life  eternal " :  in  all  such  cases 
"  life "  and  "  the  kingdom  "  are  seen  to  be  indistinguish- 
able, and  we  may  add  in  regard  to  the  last  instance  that 
the  word  eternal  is  almost  superfluous.  "Life,"  as  the 
term  is  used  in  all  these  passages,  really  means  "life 
eternal."  It  was  in  fact  inconceivable  that  the  relation- 
ship of  son  and  Father  as  Jesus  saw  it  existing  between 
man  and  God  should  be  terminated  by  death.  The 
human  physical  relationships  were  bound  to  change  with 
the  change  from  "  this  world  "  to  "  that " — "  in  that  world 
they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage" — but  the 
love  combined  with  the  power  of  God  must  make  the 
relationship  to  Him  an  unending  one.  "  I  am  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob. 
He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living."  And 
we  should  notice  that  it  is  the  relationship  of  God  to 
each  individual  soul  that  is  viewed  as  thus  persisting :  the 
mention  of  the  individual  names  makes  that  much  clear. 
It  is  this  certain  permanence  of  relationship  between  God 
and  the  individual  that  furnishes  the  underlying  idea  of 
the  resurrection  alike  for  Jesus  and  for  His  followers. 

It  has  been  asked  how  far  Jesus  looked  beyond  the 
limits  of  His  own  nation  for  the  spread  of  the  kingdom. 
There  are  indications  that  He  at  first  occupied  Himself 


132  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

solely  with  His  own  people.  There  are  twelve  apostles 
following  the  number  of  the  twelve  tribes,  and  they  are 
sent  not  to  the  world  at  large,  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  the  kingdom 
as  Jesus  taught  it  contained  in  itself  the  germs  of  univer- 
sality. The  fatherhood  of  Abraham  was  as  nothing  in 
comparison  with  the  fatherhood  of  God  claimed  by  the 
inward  man.  Such  experiences  as  that  with  the  Syro- 
Phoenician  woman,  or  that  with  the  centurion  of  Caper- 
naum, would  be  sufficient  to  reveal  the  universal  capacity 
of  mankind  for  faith,  and  at  the  end  the  confining  barriers 
are  broken  down :  the  gospel  is  to  be  preached  in  all  the 
world. 

Without  entering  into  detail,  enough  has  been  said  to 
indicate  in  its  general  features  the  character  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  as  Jesus  conceived  it.  We  pass  now  to 
consider  His  ideas  of  His  own  relationship  to  that  kingdom. 
Here,  once  more,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ethical  Law  or  the 
kingdom  of  God  or  the  nature  of  God,  an  existing  con- 
ception is  grasped  in  its  deepest  sense  and  fused  into 
unity  with  the  rest  of  the  teaching  by  a  marvellous  power 
of  thought.  Just  as  it  is  impossible  to  separate  the  moral 
teaching  of  the  kingdom  from  the  teaching  in  regard  to 
God,  so  is  it  impossible  to  separate  either  of  these  from 
Jesus'  teaching  as  to  His  own  person.  As  Harnack  has 
so  profoundly  said :  "  Jesus  revealed  the  kingdom  of  God 
as  future  and  present,  as  visible  and  invisible :  invisible 
and  yet  visible,  for  they  saw  Him." 

There  is  no  need  to  deal  at  any  length  with  the 
Messianic  expectations  of  the  time ;  they  belong  to  the 
subject  of  another  essay  in  this  series.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  an  impartial  consideration  of  the  earliest 
authorities  for  Jesus'  life  can  leave  us  with  no  doubt  as 
to  His  claim  to  fulfil  those  expectations,  in  however  un- 
expected   a    sense,    or    of   His    intention    to    reveal    the 


SON   OF   DAVID  133 

scattered  rays  of  Messianic  thought  as  united  in  His 
own  person.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  He  moves  among 
existing  ideas  with  the  greatest  freedom,  selecting  and 
combining  those  that  best  express  His  own  religious 
experience.  What  is  important  to  notice  is  that  the 
personal  experience  is  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  pre- 
existent  ideas ;  the  choice  among  these  is  everywhere 
conditioned  by  the  experience. 

The  revelation  to  others  of  Jesus'  conception  of  His 
person  and  mission  is  clearly  shown  by  the  synoptic 
records  to  have  been  progressive.  From  the  first  there 
is  the  authoritative  tone  of  the  teaching,  the  claim  of  the 
new  prophet  to  fulfil  the  message  of  the  teachers  of  old 
time :  "  I  say  unto  you."  There  is  also  an  authority 
exercised  against  the  powers  that  oppose  the  spread  of 
the  kingdom  of  goodness  and  happiness  :  "  With  authority 
He  commandeth  the  unclean  spirits."  There  is  the 
personal  invitation  with  its  accompanying  promise : 
"  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest."  There  is  the  claim  to  lead  : 
'*  One  is  your  master,  one  is  your  guide,  and  all  ye  are 
brethren."  But  in  the  current  state  of  Jewish  thought  a 
certain  reticence  was  necessary  if  any  real  work  was  to  be 
accomplished,  and  a  consideration  of  the  titles  applied  to 
Jesus  in  these  gospels  makes  the  nature  of  that  reticence, 
as  well  as  the  significance  of  the  titles,  abundantly  clean 
We  may  consider  them  in  order  of  importance. 

Son  of  David, —  this  was  a  title  of  long  Messianic 
association.  It  is  never  used  by  Jesus  of  Himself  It 
is  the  popular  title  for  the  new  teacher  given  to  Him  by 
the  crowd  or  by  someone  praying  for  His  help.  There 
is  an  obvious  reason  for  this.  The  premature  adoption  of 
this  title  would  have  led  to  immediate  misapprehension 
and  confusion.  The  conception  of  the  Messiah  was  to 
be  transformed,  and  there  is  constantly  present  to  Jesus' 


134  THE   TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

mind  the  fear  that  the  lower  classes,  taking  Him  to  be  the 
Messiah  in  the  accepted  sense  of  the  term,  might  put  Him 
forward  as  head  of  a  popular  national  movement  akin  to 
those  mentioned  by  Gamaliel  in  the  Acts.  There  are  even 
some  who  are  inclined  to  doubt  the  Davidic  descent  of 
Jesus  entirely  as  a  historical  fact,  and  to  see  in  the  inter- 
view with  the  scribes — "  How  then  doth  David  in  spirit 
call  Him  Lord?" — an  attempt  of  Jesus  to  remove  the 
popular  idea  of  the  necessity  of  Davidic  descent  for  the 
Messiah,  or  to  suggest  that  the  passages  referring  to  it 
could  only  be  understood  in  a  purely  spiritual  sense. 
At  any  rate,  the  title  of  Son  of  David  is  kept  in  the 
background. 

The  favourite  title  is  that  of  Son  of  Man.  To  Jesus' 
ordinary  hearers  this  might  be,  and  to  a  large  extent  no 
doubt  was,  a  perfectly  colourless  title  without  Messianic 
associations.  That  it  was  so  would  seem  to  have  been 
due  to  an  accident  of  language.  For  if  we  retranslate  the 
phrase  6  vlos  tov  avOpwirov — Son  of  Man — into  Aramaic, 
the  phrase  thus  obtained  would  carry  with  it  no  more 
special  sense  than  the  words  "  one,"  "  a  man,"  "  man,"  in 
English.  Thus  the  title  would  at  first  suggest  the  idea 
of  simple  manhood,  without  rank  or  distinction.  No 
doubt  Jesus  Himself  used  the  title  with  Messianic  in- 
tention from  the  first,  deriving  it  probably  from  that 
same  portion  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  from  which,  as  we 
have  suggested,  He  may  have  borrowed  the  conception 
of  the  kingdom — "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and,  behold, 
one  like  the  Son  of  Man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven : 
and  there  was  given  Him  a  kingdom,"  etc.  (Dan.  vii.  13, 
14).  So  general,  however,  was  the  term  that  only  gradually 
did  the  disciples  come  to  realise  its  Messianic  sense,  and 
more  gradually  still  the  common  people.  This  great  and 
precious  title,  whose  very  lowliness  is  its  greatest  dignity, 
and  which  we  may  suppose  Jesus   to   have  selected   as 


SON   OF   MAN  135 

emphasising  His  relationship  to  the  whole  human  race 
as  its  head  and  representative,  was  in  fact  the  chief 
mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God  given  gradually  to  the 
disciples  to  know,  but  to  others  in  parables.  Under  it 
Jesus  chose  to  veil  His  consciousness  that  He  was  Him- 
self the  Messiah,  the  inevitable  and  necessary  centre  of 
the  new  kingdom,  as  Daniel  and  the  prophets  had  fore- 
seen it. 

We  have  no  space  to  study  the  uses  of  this  title  in 
detail ;  a  few  significant  facts  may  be  mentioned.  Its 
usages  will,  as  a  rule,  be  found  to  follow  the  general  lines 
of  the  teaching  in  regard  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  Some- 
times the  kingdom  is  viewed  as  in  process  of  being  estab- 
lished, and  the  title.  Son  of  Man,  obviously  refers  to 
Jesus  as  He  labours  on  earth  for  its  establishment :  "  The 
Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
lost " ;  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  come  not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister."  As  Son  of  Man  Jesus  claims  to 
reinterpret  the  ancient  law  in  accordance  with  the  general 
conditions  of  the  new  kingdom  :  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  lord 
also  of  the  Sabbath."  As  Son  of  Man  He  proclaims  the 
state  of  forgiveness  existing  in  the  kingdom :  "  The  Son 
of  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins."  It  is  to  be 
noticed  that  the  opponents  do  not  discover  in  these  words 
an  immediate  claim  to  Messiahship,  but  only  a  blasphe- 
mous human  utterance,  while  at  the  same  time  they  ignore 
the  essential  condition  of  faith  in  the  subject  of  the  miracle. 
The  work  of  the  spread  of  the  kingdom,  with  all  its  suffer- 
ing, is  to  be  undertaken  for  the  Son  of  Man's  sake.  Some- 
times, on  the  other  hand,  the  kingdom  is  viewed  in  the 
light  of  its  final  establishment,  and  in  these  cases  the 
title  Son  of  Man  is  used  in  a  more  obvious  Messianic 
sense,  but  with  less  pointed  and  necessary  reference  to 
Jesus  Himself:  "Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  Me  and 
of  My  words,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  ashamed 


136  THE  TEACHING   OF  CHRIST 

when  He  shall  come  in  His  glory";  "Then  shall  they 
see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the  clouds,"  etc.  The 
former  of  these  two  passages  is  very  noticeable  and 
probably  very  characteristic ;  the  identification  between 
the  Son  of  Man  and  the  speaker  is  not  necessary,  though 
it  must  ultimately  have  become  clear.  The  revelation 
of  the  kingdom  in  its  intimate  relation  to  the  personality 
of  the  teacher  was  constantly  carried  forward  under  this 
ambiguous  title,  until  the  full  significance  of  the  relation 
was  announced  to  the  disciples  at  the  notable  interview 
at  Caesarea  Philippi,  where,  according  to  St.  Mark,  the 
Messiahship  at  any  rate  was  recognised  by  Peter,  speaking 
on  behalf  of  the  other  disciples,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ " ; 
and  where,  according  to  St.  Matthew,  the  title  of  Son 
of  Man  was  brought  into  relation  with  that  of  Messiah 
and  Son  of  God :  "  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son 
of  Man,  am  ?  .  .  .  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

It  is  this  last  that  is  the  culminating  title  of  the  revela- 
tion. It  is  true  that  this  title,  like  the  others,  was  an  old 
one;  it  had  been  applied  to  Israel,  as  the  first-begotten 
son  of  God ;  it  had  been  applied  also,  as  in  Psalm  ii., 
to  convey  a  special  promise  of  protection  to  Israel's  king, 
*'  Thou  art  My  son,  this  day  have  1  begotten  thee."  It 
is  true  also  that  Jesus  in  the  synoptic  gospels  never  uses 
the  full  phrase  Son  of  God  in  reference  to  Himself.  On 
the  other  hand,  expressions  like  "  the  Son "  and  "  my 
Father,"  interpreted  with  reference  to  the  synoptic  teaching 
as  a  whole,  make  the  nature  of  the  claim  expressed  by 
the  title  perfectly  clear.  As  "  the  Son "  Jesus  claimed 
to  stand  in  a  closer  and  more  intimate  relation  to  the 
Father-God  than  did  any  of  His  followers ;  they  are 
brethren ;  He  is  not  merely  their  brother,  but  their  master 
and  guide,  and  He  is  this  in  virtue  of  His  unique  position 
and  the  fact  that  He  possesses  a  more  perfect  knowledge 


SON   OF   GOD  137 

of  the  Father  and  of  the  Father's  will  than  is  theirs.  The 
classical  passage  is  that  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Luke,  drawing  from  some  common  source :  "  All  things 
are  delivered  unto  Me  of  My  Father;  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father :  neither  knoweth  any 
man  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  will  reveal  Him."  Even  if  that  passage  were 
rejected  on  the  ground  that  it  does  not  occur  in  St.  Mark, 
there  would  still  be  ample  evidence  of  the  currency  of  the 
title,  though  none,  perhaps,  so  clear  of  its  significance 
It  was,  we  are  told,  applied  to  Jesus  by  the  spirits  of  evil : 
"  What  have  we  to  do  with  Thee,  Jesus,  Thou  Son  of  the 
most  high  God  ? "  "  The  unclean  spirits  cried,  saying, 
Thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  It  is  suggested  in  its  unique 
character  in  the  parable  of  the  husbandmen,  "  Having  yet, 
therefore,  one  son,  his  well-beloved."  It  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  finally  accepted  by  the  disciples  at  Csesarea  Philippi. 
It  would  be  impossible  to  define  all  that  this  title  im- 
plied. We  may,  however,  say  without  hesitation  that  its 
use  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  complete  depen- 
dence upon  God.  In  knowledge,  for  instance,  Jesus  regards 
Himself  as  inferior  to  the  Father,  though  the  superior  of 
angels  and  of  men  :  "  Of  that  day  and  of  that  hour  knoweth 
no  man,  no,  not  the  angels,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father."  He  appears  as  liable  to  temptation  :  "  Ye  are 
they  that  have  continued  with  Me  in  My  temptations ; "  ^ 
while  the  saying,  "  There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is 
God,"  would  seem  to  point  to  the  consciousness  in  Jesus 
that  while  subject  to  the  conditions  of  human  life  and 
conflict  He  is  inferior  to  God,  who  alone  has  goodness 
as  an  assured  possession.  On  the  other  hand  there  is 
much  to  show  that  this  was  regarded  as  only  temporary ; 
presently  the  moral  victory  would  be  complete,  and   He 

^  St.  Luke  xxii.  28.  ol  8iafjt.€fi€vr}K6T€S  fier  i/xov  iv  roh  irecpaa/jioTs  /jlov. 
Perhaps  "trying"  or  "proving"  comes  nearer  the  true  meaning  than  "tempta- 
tion" in  our  modern  sense :  but  cf.  pp.  138,  139. 


138  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

would  return  as  judge  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  with  the 
holy  angels. 

It  was  this  claim  to  unique  sonship  that  led  finally  to 
death.  At  the  trial  the  High  Priest  asked  the  definite 
question,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ?  " 
and  Jesus  said,  "  I  am."  The  claim  was  at  once  regarded 
as  blasphemous,  and  was  certain  to  be  so  regarded.  In 
this  same  interview  with  the  disciples  at  Caesarea  Philippi 
the  certainty  of  a  fatal  termination  following  upon  this 
claim  is  faced  and  accepted,  and  the  necessity  of  a  suffer- 
ing Messiah,  so  alien  to  all  contemporary  thought,  is  for 
the  first  time  clearly  revealed. 

It  has  been  doubted  whether  this  idea  of  suffering  was 
present  to  Jesus  from  the  first.  Passages  like  that  referring 
to  the  sorrow  of  the  children  of  the  bridechamber  at  the 
departure  of  the  bridegroom  may  suggest  that  it  was. 
At  any  rate,  once  it  was  realised  that  the  idea  of  a 
Messianic  claim,  founded  solely  upon  the  sense  of  supreme 
spiritual  sonship  to  God,  ran  counter  to  all  those  national 
hopes  which  were  bound  up  with  a  material  triumph, 
death  would  be  seen  as  bound  to  follow  its  open  pro- 
clamation. There  could,  however,  be  no  desertion  of  so 
important  a  position,  and  death  itself  under  such  circum- 
stances is  accepted  as  the  will  of  God.  There  is  apparently 
a  temptation  to  put  aside  the  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah, 
but  when  Peter  gives  expression  to  it  he  is  met  with  the 
sternest  of  rebukes.  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,  for  thou 
savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  the  things 
that  be  of  men."  The  old  conception  of  an  earthly 
Messianic  kingdom  was  but  the  result  of  a  narrow, 
human  view  ;  the  new  conception  which  saw  the  true 
life  of  the  Messiah  in  the  life  of  meekness  and  of  service, 
perfected  by  a  death  brought  about  by  devotion  to  the 
duty  of  revealing  the  highest  truth  in  the  message,  was 
derived  from  God  Himself.     The  language  of  the  rebuke 


THE   SUFFERING   MESSIAH  139 

to  Peter  inevitably  reminds  us  of  the  rebukes  to  Satan 
in  the  story  which  prefaces  the  opening  of  the  pubHc 
ministry,  where  there  is  represented  to  have  been  a 
similar  temptation  to  take  false  views  of  the  Messianic 
destiny.  The  point  here  insisted  upon  was,  in  fact,  of 
the  utmost  importance.  The  peculiar  authority  of  the 
message  depended  upon  the  claim  to  peculiar  sonship. 
Apart  from  the  peculiar  intimacy  of  sonship  revealed  by 
the  religious  consciousness  of  Jesus,  His  teaching,  whether 
in  regard  to  the  will  of  God,  or  the  new  gospel  of  the 
kingdom,  or  His  own  person,  would  be  bereft  of  all  its 
force.  Loyalty  to  this  consciousness  led,  as  He  saw, 
almost  inevitably  to  suffering  and  to  death. 

Certain  lines  of  thought  closely  connected  with  this 
must  here  be  briefly  mentioned,  to  be  resumed  in  some 
cases  at  greater  length  in  connection  with  the  teaching 
of  St.  John.  In  the  first  place  it  is  clearly  seen  that  for 
such  a  life  of  obedience,  perfected  by  such  a  death,  there 
could  be  no  thought  of  severance  from  God  at  any  point. 
The  continued  personal  existence  was,  as  we  have  shown, 
involved  for  Jesus  in  the  conception  of  God's  Fatherhood, 
and  the  resurrection  was  apparently  necessarily  implied. 

Closely  following  on  this  came  the  conviction  and  the 
promise  of  His  own  continued  presence  with  the  Church : 
"Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world." 

In  the  third  place  we  must  here  allude  to  the  passage 
which  speaks  of  that  perfect  life  of  service  as  a  ransom, 
more  especially  as  the  words  would  seem  to  have  been 
often  misunderstood :  "  The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  His  life  a 
ransom  for  many."  A  consideration  of  the  context  makes 
the  meaning  of  \vrpov  fairly  clear.  There  is  apparently  no 
thought  of  the  redemption  of  the  forfeit  souls  of  men  as 
the  result  of  an  exchange  such  as  we  find  in  i  Timothy  ii.  6, 


140  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

where  the  word  is  noticeably  avTiXvrpov,  or  in  2  Corin- 
thians V.  21  :  "He  made  Him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew 
no  sin."  Such  ideas,  though  they  may  not  be  far  removed 
from  Jesus'  thought,  are  yet  probably  a  later  development 
and  not  contained  in  the  original  expression.  The 
emphasis  here  is  upon  the  idea  of  release,  not  of  ex- 
change. The  personal  life  is  regarded  as  lost  in  service, 
and  it  is  so  lost  with  the  view  of  winning  many  from 
the  life  of  sin  and  selfishness  to  the  life  of  service  and 
ministry  in  obedience  to  God's  will.  Mankind  are  as 
slaves,  who  are  to  be  delivered  through  the  devoted  life 
and  example  of  Jesus  into  the  free  life  of  sacrifice  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  life  lost  is  the  life  won  ;  the  yoke 
of  Jesus  is  in  reality  the  easy  yoke,  and  at  the  same  time, 
as  many  have  realised,  the  life  of  complete  personal 
sacrifice  is  the  only  "  loosing-price  "  for  other  men.  It 
is  a  thought  that  may  be  paralleled  from  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John  :  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 
men  unto  Me." 

The  same  idea  of  redemption  underlies  the  words  used 
at  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist :  "  This  is  My  blood  of 
the  new  testament  which  is  shed  for  many."  In  order 
really  to  live  in  God's  kingdom  men  must  be  won  to  the 
life  of  loving  sacrifice.  The  blood  shed  by  Jesus  in  proof 
of  the  consummation  of  sacrifice  in  His  own  person  is 
shed  to  win  men  to  this,  and  at  the  same  time  ratifies 
the  new  covenant  of  love  between  God  and  man.  In  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel  the  words,  "for  the  remission  of  sins," 
have  been  added  ;  they  are  probably  of  the  nature  of  a 
comment,  expanding  what  is  implied  in  the  earlier  form. 
For  it  would  seem  as  if  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  for  those  who 
attained  through  Him  to  the  life  and  love  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  forgiveness  of  sins  at  once  followed  from  the  love 
of  God,  whose  will  it  is  that  not  one  of  these  little  ones 
should  perish.     The  love  of  God  is  there — a  perfect  love ; 


THE   TRIUMPHANT   RETURN  141 

the  proof  of  union  with  that  on  the  human  stage  is 
the  devotion  of  the  life  to  the  love  of  men  in  faithful- 
ness even  unto  death.  That  proof  Jesus  had  given  in 
perfect  obedience  and  sinlessness  ;  sin  being  the  act  of 
selfish  rebellion  against  God's  will  for  the  good  of  men, 
the  practical  denial  of  the  belief  in  love.  It  was  for  others 
to  strive  after  the  same  devotion  of  heart  and  life  in  the 
same  unfaltering  faith,  but,  as  it  was  Jesus'  life  alone  that 
perfectly  revealed  the  way,  so,  as  sin-laden  generations 
soon  came  to  feel,  testing  their  lives  by  His  standard, 
it  was  to  His  life  alone  that  mankind  dared  appeal  in 
presence  of  God. 

Finally  there  followed  upon  this  revelation  of  the 
necessity  of  suffering,  with  the  certainty  of  apparent 
failure,  a  more  developed  picture  of  the  circumstances  of 
the  return  and  the  triumphant  establishment  of  the  king- 
dom. The  gaze  is  more  and  more  frequently  diverted 
from  the  suffering  of  the  present  to  the  power  and  glory 
of  the  future.  Close  upon  the  Messianic  claim  before  the 
chief  priest,  involving  the  certainty  of  suffering  and  death, 
there  follows  the  prophecy  of  ultimate  triumph.  "Ye 
shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  This 
return  is  to  be  the  signal  for  a  general  resurrection  in 
full  accordance  with  contemporary  Jewish  thought,  and 
in  this  respect,  as  in  all  its  details,  it  is  connected  with  the 
main  idea  of  God  and  His  unfailing  care :  "  Shall  not  God 
avenge  His  own  elect  ?  " 

In  regard  to  the  exact  time,  though  Jesus  says  that  the 
day  and  hour  were  unknown  to  Him  or  to  any  but  the 
Father,  yet  there  is  strong  reason  to  suppose  that  the  early 
Church  based  its  expectation  of  a  speedy  return  upon 
certain  points  in  Jesus'  own  teaching.  It  is  sufficient  to 
refer  to  such  passages  as  Mark  ix.  i,  or  Mark  xiii.  30: 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  generation  shall  not  pass 


142  THE  TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

till  all  these  things  be  done " ;  though  it  is  possible  that 
there  has  here  been  some  misunderstanding,  and  that 
expressions  which  were  originally  intended  to  refer  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  have  been  subsequently  inter- 
preted as  predictions  of  the  approaching  end  of  the  world.^ 
Whenever  it  took  place,  this  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  with  power  would  involve  a  judgment  held  by  the 
Messiah  in  presence  of  God  and  of  the  holy  angels ;  at 
this  judgment  there  would  be  an  apportionment  of  rewards 
in  accordance  with  deeds,  and  in  the  parable  of  the  sheep 
and  the  goats  we  are  shown  a  reward  of  goodness  in  itself, 
even  when  performed  in  ignorance  of  the  relation  of  all 
acts  of  charity  to  the  person  of  Christ.  A  new  point  is 
added  to  this  parable  if  we  regard  the  gathered  nations  as 
including  especially  the  Gentile  world. 

The  Church  early  associated  the  return  of  Jesus  with 
earthly  portents  and  catastrophes.  It  is  not  easy  to 
decide  how  much  of  the  short  apocalypse  contained  in 
our  synoptic  gospels  is  due  to  Jesus  Himself,  how  much 
to  His  expectant  followers  in  a  portentous  time.  Here, 
if  anywhere,  we  might  expect  some  lack  of  clearness  in 
transmission,  some  blending  of  old  with  new;  possibly 
even  some  wisdom  after  the  event.  The  question  remains 
to  be  decided,  and  is  perhaps  not  of  great  importance. 
In  its  general  features  the  character  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  beyond  the  grave  depends  on  the  same  ideas  as 
on  earth ;  the  colours  are  drawn  from  earthly  experience 
suitable  to  the  audiences  addressed,  but  the  central  thought 
is  still  that  of  fellowship  with  God,  secured  in  obedience 
to  His  will  through  fellowship  with  men. 

The  same  service,  the  same  faithfulness,  the  same 
obedience  even  unto  death  are  to  be  characteristic  of  the 


^  It  may  be  that  the  fourth  gospel  has  preserved  the  true  sense,  and  that 
the  original  reference  was  to  the  immediate  coming  and  continued  presence  of 
the  Spirit :  cf.  pp.  164,  165. 


1 


THE  TEACHING  BY  ACT  143 

followers  as  of  the  master ;  and  in  this  sense  the  whole 
teaching  would  seem  to  have  been  summed  up  in  the 
institution  of  the  Last  Supper.  Whatever  else  it  may 
have  been,  that  institution  became  a  symbol  to  Jesus' 
followers  of  their  brotherhood  and  union  one  with  another 
in  a  life  that  in  its  essence  was  not  theirs,  but  His.  In 
that  simple  act  of  common  worship  are  to  be  found  all 
the  main  ideas  that  we  have  had  before  us.  The  new 
law  of  mutual  love,  the  new  kingdom,  the  new  revelation 
of  God  in  a  fresh  and  loving  covenant  of  mercy  ratified 
in  the  outpoured  blood  ;  the  commemoration  of  that  life 
which  consummated  its  work  of  sacrifice  in  the  breaking 
of  the  body  in  death ;  finally  the  passover  thought  of  a 
great  deliverance — all  these  meet  in  that  great  and  simple 
rite,  the  depth  of  whose  symbolism  the  wisest  cannot 
fathom,  though  the  humblest  may  find  comfort  in  its  sim- 
plicity, as  in  all  the  words  of  the  teaching,  so  elementary, 
so  adequate  to  all  that  life  or  death  could  bring. 

And  with  this  mention  of  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist 
we  pass  to  a  new  division  of  our  subject.  There  is  a 
teaching  of  act  as  well  as  of  word,  and  it  is  infinitely 
more  subtle  and  by  consequence  more  difficult  to  forge. 
A  single  incident,  narrated  by  all  the  synoptic  writers,  may 
be  quoted  as  typical.  "  He  came  to  Capernaum,  and  being 
in  the  house  He  asked  them.  What  was  it  that  ye  disputed 
among  yourselves  by  the  way?  But  they  held  their 
peace,  for  by  the  way  they  had  disputed  among  them- 
selves, who  should  be  the  greatest.  And  He  sat  down 
and  called  the  twelve  and  said  unto  them,  If  any  man 
desire  to  be  first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all  and  servant 
of  all.  And  He  took  a  little  child  and  set  him  in  the 
midst  of  them ;  and  when  He  had  taken  him  in  His 
arms  He  said  unto  them  :  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  he  shall  not  enter  therein." 
At  once  we  say  of  the  action  that  He  alone  could  have 


144  THE   TEACHING   OF   CHRIST 

done  it.  Across  the  bitterness  of  the  dispute  He  passes 
as  He  is  said  to  have  passed  across  the  stormy  sea.  The 
friendship  is  restored  and  the  atmosphere  in  which  alone 
love  and  friendship  are  possible.  It  is  the  lesson  of  the 
natural  beauty  of  a  loved  and  happy  child  untouched  by 
prejudice  or  jealousy  or  passion.  We  may  call  it  the 
return  to  nature — the  perfect  nature  of  man  that  is  perfect 
love.  It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Golden  Age,  the  early 
sinless  world,  the  true  kingdom  of  heaven  and  of  God. 
The  few  symbolic  acts  that  have  been  recorded  all  carry 
with  them  this  same  enforcement  of  the  spirit  of  love 
combined  with  the  complete  negation  of  self  More  clearly 
than  anything  else,  they  allow  us  an  insight  into  the  spirit 
and  life  of  Jesus  and  His  society. 

It  is  here,  perhaps,  that  a  consideration  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  Christ's  miracles  may  most  fittingly  be  introduced. 
The  time  is  past  when  Christianity  could  be  presented 
as  a  revelation  attested  by  miracles,  depending  on  these 
for  the  main  evidence  of  its  truth.  For  a  while  these 
were  the  wall  that  formed  the  chief  bulwark  of  the  city ; 
to-day  the  defences  are  placed  far  up  on  the  surrounding 
hills,  wholly  unmarked  by  unobservant  eyes,  but  infinitely 
more  subtle  and  more  strong.  At  the  same  time,  though 
no  longer  of  defensive  value,  the  ancient  walls  still  stand, 
lending  a  peculiar  character  and  aspect  to  the  city  that 
they  once  protected. 

With  the  spread  of  the  area  of  scientific  uniformity — 
the  space  within  which  general  laws,  without  exception, 
are  found  to  hold — it  became  inevitable  that  the  evidence 
required  to  carry  conviction  in  regard  to  supposed  ex- 
ceptions should  be  very  strong,  beyond  all  suspicion  of 
error  in  observation  or  transmission.  And  that,  perhaps, 
is  what  we  must  say,  however  reluctantly,  our  present 
historical  records,  even  on  the  most  favourable  view,  do 
not  give  us.     And  to  say  this  is  not,  as  it  has  too  often 


SCIENCE   AND   MIRACLE  145 

been  the  foolish  habit  to  assert,  to  disparage  in  the 
smallest  degree  the  general  reliability  or  faithfulness  of 
our  writers.  It  is  with  them  as  with  us.  What  to-day 
appears  a  miracle  may  to-morrow  be  an  explained 
scientific  phenomenon  —  the  man  then  who  presents  it 
to-day,  as  it  appeared  to  him,  as  a  wholly  isolated  and 
unexplained  phenomenon  outside  the  ordinary  course  of 
nature,  is  not  discredited  as  a  witness  because  to-morrow 
his  miracle  is  found  to  be  but  an  instance  of  some  wider 
law;  nor  again  is  one  who,  in  an  age  uncritical  about 
such  matters,  follows  the  tendency  of  his  age  in  readily 
attaching  miraculous  occurrences  to  a  remarkable  person- 
ality, thereby  discredited  in  all  respects  because  a  later 
age  finds  itself  constrained  to  be  critical.  In  one  direction 
there  has  necessarily  been  progress,  in  another  there  may 
have  been  none.  The  critical  eye  for  character  has  been 
but  little  developed  in  nineteen  hundred  years ;  the  critical 
eye  for  nature  has  been  enormously  sharpened  within  the 
last  century,  and  it  need  not  surprise  us  if  there  should  be 
an  acquiescence  in  the  possibility  of  error  in  regard  to 
the  latter,  while  error  in  regard  to  the  former  is  treated 
as  absent. 

At  the  same  time,  to  revert  to  our  simile,  the  element 
of  miracle  in  the  records  remains  an  important  structural 
feature,  of  which  our  city  could  not  be  deprived  with- 
out material  loss  from  a  historical  standpoint,  though  it 
no  longer  constitutes  the  main  line  of  defence.  In  regard 
to  miracle,  as  in  regard  to  much  else  in  life,  a  man  sees 
what  he  is  prepared  to  see,  and  of  the  majority  of  the 
miracles  attributed  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  they  bear  a  marked  prevailing  character.  It 
was  in  this  light  that  the  first  Christian  writers  saw  them, 
and  it  is  this  that  leads  us  to  discuss  them  at  this  point, 
side  by  side  with  acts  of  teaching,  such  as  the  setting  of 
the  little  child  in  the  midst,  the  genuineness  of  which  few 


146  THE  TEACHING  OF   CHRIST 

critics,  however  late  they  might  place  our  records,  would 
be  inclined  to  question  or  dispute. 

As  has  been  frequently  pointed  out,  the  bulk  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  are  in  one  form  or  another  works  of 
healing ;  that,  too,  appears  to  be  the  character  of  most 
of  those  works  that  our  evangelists  claim  to  pass  over 
or  leave  unrecorded  in  detail.  In  regard  to  all  such  ex- 
ceptional works  of  healing  two  points  may  be  noticed. 
On  the  one  hand,  their  improbability  due  to  the  weight  of 
uniformity  in  the  opposing  scale  must  to-day  be  regarded 
as  inevitably  demanding  a  counterbalancing  weight  of 
testimony;  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  remember  that  the 
tendency  of  the  progress  of  science  of  late  years  has  been 
to  diminish  the  degree  of  certainty  with  which  we  can  fix 
limits  to  the  action  of  mind  on  body,  particularly  in  the 
case  of  certain  obviously  neurotic  diseases,  while  in  the 
present  instance  the  personality,  always  an  important  factor 
in  such  matters,  is  confessedly  of  a  wholly  exceptional 
order  and  power.  On  such  a  view  many  of  the  so-called 
miracles  cease  to  be  miracles  in  the  strict  sense,  passing 
within  the  range  of  phenomena  unexplained  to-day,  to  be 
naturally  explained '  to-morrow,  but  they  do  not  therefore 
cease  to  be  signs.  That  this  power  of  will — this  "virtue" — 
should  have  been  exercised  so  widely  for  the  removal  of 
suffering  is  the  striking  fact,  and  thus  these  miracles,  as 
they  are  recorded,  may  be  taken  to  form  part  of  that 
teaching  by  act,  revealing  personality,  which  forms  so 
certain  a  part  of  our  records.  In  their  prevailing  tendency, 
at  any  rate,  the  miracles  throw  light  upon  the  character  as 
the  writers  conceived  it. 

The  supreme  miracles  of  restoration  from  death  to  life 
belong  to  the  same  category;  our  ultimate  attitude  towards 
them  will  depend  upon  our  ultimate  view  of  the  evidence, 
but  upon  any  conclusion  to  which  we  may  be  driven  they 


THE   MIRACLES  147 

will  continue  to  represent  the  writer's  conception  of  a  char- 
acter— its  compassion,  and  its  will  to  save. 

There  remain  miracles  that  it  is  not  easy  to  explain  or 
to  bring  under  any  general  view,  many  and  ingenious  as 
are  the  explanations  that  have  been  offered  of  them.  Such 
perhaps  are  the  transference  of  the  devils  to  the  Gadarene 
swine  or  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig  tree.  In  regard  to 
these  a  fuller  knowledge  of  contemporary  thought,  especially 
of  contemporary  miracle  cycles,  might  help  us  in  forming 
a  conclusion  ;  meanwhile  the  question  must  remain  one  for 
history.  The  probability  against  such  phenomena  is  very 
great ;  the  possibility  of  their  being  introduced  in  perfectly 
good  faith  in  an  uncritical  age,  particularly  into  the  life  of 
One  who  had  performed  many  real  mighty  works,  is  con- 
siderable. We  may  frame  hypotheses  about  them  and  their 
presence  in  the  narrative,  but  these  cannot  pretend  to  any 
certainty.  And  so  in  conclusion  may  we  not  suggest  a 
certain  perspective  in  dealing  with  this  question  ?  In  the 
dim  background  these  isolated,  unexplained  actions;  nearer 
the  foreground  acts  not  inconsistent  with  the  character  and 
personality,  but  demanding  more  evidence  for  certainty 
than  we  could  on  any  theory  at  present  claim ;  finally,  in 
the  forefront  those  acts  which  were  possibly  the  foundation 
of  all  the  stories  in  a  wondering  age — acts  of  spiritual 
healing,  many  of  them  in  no  sense  inconceivable  to  modern 
thought  or  modern  science ;  these  last  bringing  us  back  to 
those  symbolic  acts  with  which  we  started,  and  with  them 
helping  to  reveal  the  true  essence  of  the  character  and 
personality  more  clearly  than  any  words. 

There  are,  of  course,  those — and  they  are  many — to 
whom  this  question  presents  itself  in  a  wholly  different 
way.  For  them  the  power  of  spiritual  personality,  gather- 
ing force  like  some  great  tidal  wave,  sweeps  up  over  all 
material  laws  of  evidence,  changing  all  levels,  carrying  all 
before  it,  so  that  in  its  wake  the  resurrection  appears  as 


148  THE   TEACHING  OF   CHRIST 

easy  to  accept  to-day  as  it  was  for  the  first  disciples,  and 
the  other  miracles  a  fortiori.  That  is  a  view  with  which^ 
within  the  limits  of  our  present  discussion,  we  are  not 
concerned.  We  would  only  point  out,  what  all  must  realise, 
that  only  a  conception  of  the  personality,  based  on  his- 
torical evidence,  can  render  such  views  possible  at  all, 
while  it  is  surely  the  part  of  those  who  hold  them  to  bear 
with  others  who  cannot  halt  where  they  have  halted  on 
the  road  of  historical  investigation,  or  who  stumble  where 
they  firmly  tread. 

The  first  part  of  our  inquiry  is  at  an  end.  We  have 
reviewed  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  best 
authenticated  documents.  We  have  grouped  that  teaching 
under  certain  of  its  general  and  most  important  ideas : 
the  new  righteousness,  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  Fatherhood 
of  God,  the  doctrines  of  Sonship,  and  of  the  Messiah.  We 
have  seen  in  the  case  of  all  of  these  that  the  teaching  was 
not  wholly  new ;  in  the  case  of  each  a  basis  was  to  be 
found  in  previous  thought;  in  a  sense,  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  was  but  the  goal  of  a  long  course  of  progress,  the 
culmination  of  a  slow  development.  We  have  even  seen 
in  regard  to  certain  doctrines  a  possibility  of  progress  in 
the  mind  of  Jesus  Himself.  And  if  we  now  turn  back 
to  the  point  at  which  we  started — the  isolated  aphorism, 
the  unsystematic  presentation,  the  occasional  act,  we  find 
ourselves  enabled  to  regard  all  that  isolation,  lack  of 
system,  contradiction  even,  as  in  reality  a  complete  and 
perfect  system — a  system  in  which  no  part  of  the  teaching 
stands  alone,  but  each  and  every  idea,  whether  borrowed 
from  the  past  or  not,  is  here  perfectly  absorbed  and  in- 
timately related  to  every  other.  The  new  righteousness, 
the  kingdom  of  God,  the  Fatherhood  of  God — none  of 
these  can  be  understood  without  reference  to  all  the  rest ; 
none  of  them  has  any  meaning  apart  from  the  conscious- 
ness and  personality  of  the  teacher.     If  we  have  momen- 


THE   LIVING   CHRIST  149 

tarily  divided  up  the  teaching  for  purposes  of  investigation, 
yet  division  is  really  impossible ;  of  their  own  accord  the 
fragments  come  together  into  a  complete  and  organic 
whole.  It  is  the  presence  of  the  personality  that  we  are 
made  to  feel  throughout ;  that  we  could  perhaps  have  been 
made  to  feel  by  no  other  mode  of  presentation  than  this 
which  seems  so  much  the  result  of  chance.  Even  the 
author  of  the  fourth  gospel,  however  much  he  may  have 
gained  for  us  in  other  directions,  has  yet  lost  something 
from  the  purely  historical  standpoint  in  the  attempt  to  be 
systematic.  No  teaching,  no  system  that  has  ever  been 
given  to  the  world  was  ever  so  much  the  product  of  the 
whole  man  as  was  that  of  Jesus.  There  is  in  it  a  great 
system,  the  result  of  free  and  profound  criticism  on  the 
past,  the  result  of  fresh  and  independent  observation  on 
the  present,  and  yet  so  entirely,  so  absolutely  is  the  per- 
sonality of  the  teacher  fused  with  the  teaching,  that  it  was 
to  Him  that  men  turned,  of  Him  that  they  wrote,  for  Him 
rather  than  for  any  special  truth  that  He  had  formulated 
that  they  were  content  to  suffer  and  to  die.  Strange  surely 
is  it  that,  when  we  turn  outside  the  gospels  to  the  other 
writings  of  His  followers,  scarcely  a  saying  is  recorded  as 
His,  scarcely  a  doctrine  is  formally  assigned  to  Him. 
Here  and  there  an  isolated  utterance — "  It  is  more  blessed 
to  give  than  to  receive  ";i  here  and  there  some  obvious 
reminiscence  of  His  words,  as  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James 
or  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter;  but  quite  early  to  all 
these  writers  the  Personality  of  the  Master  and  its  con- 
tinuance became  of  more  importance  than  any  isolated 
doctrine  or  portion  of  His  system.  As  far  as  these  writers 
are  concerned,  we  are  left  to  recover  such  details  as  best  we 
may,  and  when  we  have  endeavoured  to  do  this  we  can  but 
pronounce  that  the  instinct  of  these  early  followers  was 
wholly  right :  the  living  Christ  is  more  than  any  system. 

*  Acts  XX.  35. 


150  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

So  far  we  have  sought  to  follow  a  strictly  historical  line 
We  have  divided  our  authorities.  We  have  chosen  to 
abide  for  our  conclusions  by  those  who  are  considered  by 
competent  critics  to  be  the  earliest  and  most  reliable,  and 
for  the  most  part  we  have  rested  upon  the  earliest  among 
these.  We  now  pass  to  consider  the  position  and  im- 
portance of  the  fourth  gospel  for  the  purposes  of  our 
investigation.  This  is  not  the  place  to  go  into  any 
elaborate  considerations  of  date  or  authorship.  It  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  on  no  view  could  this  gospel  be 
regarded  as  precisely  on  a  level  with  the  other  three. 
The  opening  verses  would  be  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
difference  even  to  the  most  uncritical  mind.  Here  in  a 
sense  unknown  to  the  other  evangelists  we  have  reached 
a  reflective  stage  of  thought :  the  facts  have  been  selected, 
the  teaching  formulated,  the  details  related  to  a  central 
idea.  The  comparison  of  the  opening  verses  of  St.  Luke 
with  those  of  St.  John  gives  an  obvious  and  simple  key  to 
the  difference,  and  St.  Luke  may  be  taken  merely  to  have 
expressed  what  was  in  fact  a  common  purpose  among 
the  synoptists. 

What  then  are  we  to  say  of  the  position  and  value  of 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John?  We  have  reached  a  point  most 
suitable  for  the  consideration  of  this  problem.  For  with 
St.  John,  if  we  suppose  the  gospel  to  have  been  by  him,  it 
is  as  though,  looking  back  at  the  end  of  a  long  life  at 
all  that  had  been  written  and  taught  about  his  Master, 
he  were  afraid  that  the  secret  of  it  all  might  yet  be  lost, 
and  so  beyond  all  question  he  will  make  it  clear.  It  is 
possible  that  our  synoptic  records  were  before  him,i  and 
that  it  was  his  wish  or  purpose  to  supplement  these. 
He  has  certainly  in  view  the  general  tendency  of  the 
Christian  thought  of  his  time,  with  its  liability  to  wander 
off  upon  side  issues  or  cross  ways  far  from  the  only  road. 
1  Zahn,  Einleiiungy  ii.  499 ;  Moffat,  Hist.  N.  r.,  492 ;  Weiss,  Einl.f$6q, 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN  151 

"Locutus  est  multa,  sed  prope  omnia  de  caritate,"  says 
St.  Augustine  in  his  commentary  on  St.  John.  CaritaSy 
ayaTT^— that  is  almost  his  only  theme ;  and  it  is  so,  not 
for  itself,  but  because  that  term  brought  him  nearest  to 
that  with  which  he  was  alone  concerned :  the  living  per- 
sonality, present  in  every  utterance  and  every  act,  making 
it  a  matter  of  little  moment  whether  the  record  were 
enshrined  in  books  that  the  world  could  scarce  contain, 
or  in  a  small  and  carefully  edited  treatise.  That  was 
the  real  answer  to  the  nascent  heresies  of  the  time. 
There  was  no  need  to  combat  them  in  word :  it  was 
sufficient  to  set  over  against  them  the  living  per- 
sonality with  its  prevailing  characteristics  or  what  might 
best  express  them.  There  has,  of  course,  been  editing, 
arrangement,  selection ;  there  may  even  be  something  of 
the  nature  of  comment :  but  in  relation  to  the  whole 
system  of  teaching  St.  John  neither  adds  to  nor  detracts 
from  what  has  been  furnished  by  the  other  evangelists, 
nor  is  he  concerned  to  do  so.  The  law,  the  kingdom  of 
God,  the  fatherhood  of  God,  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah, 
and  the  person  of  Christ— all  these  are  there  as  they  are 
here.  Only  here  more  vividly  and  more  consciously  the 
personality  of  the  teacher  is  set  in  relation  to  them,  and 
obviously  made  to  combine  them  in  a  manner  unknown 
to  the  previous  writers.  The  Gospel  of  St.  John  is  of  the 
nature  of  a  commentary,  but  the  comments  are,  as  we 
feel,  all  really  drawn  from  the  works  of  the  original 
author.  The  other  evangelists  may  furnish  us  with  a  larger 
body  of  facts :  St.  John  gives  us  the  only  clue  as  to  the 
method  of  viewing  them.  And  if  such  be  in  any  sense 
a  true  account  of  the  matter,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
question  of  date  and  authorship  becomes  comparatively 
unimportant.  The  conclusion  above  suggested  need  not 
be  materially  altered  if  criticism  should  ultimately  compel 
us  to  abandon  the  theory  of  Johannine  authorship.     Even 


152  THE  TEACHING  OF   CHRIST 

if  not  by  St.  John,  the  gospel  yet  embodies  the  traditional 
view  of  the  Church,  which  we  might,  or  might  not,  have 
gathered  from  the  synoptic  writers,  that  the  Personality 
of  Jesus  remains  of  more  importance  than  any  isolated 
act  or  utterance.  Whether  it  be  St.  John  or  another, 
"Locutus  est  multa,  sed  prope  omnia  de  caritate,"  and  in 
the  general  tradition  of  the  Church,  on  this  point  at  least 
infallible,  ayairrj,  charity,  love,  stood  forth  as  the  nearest 
approach  to  a  general  expression  for  that  living  personality 
which  in  living  had  revealed  God  and  the  Spirit  of  the 
World. 

We  do  not  for  an  instant  deny  that  much  is  gained  if 
the  gospel  can  be  shown  to  be  of  St.  John's  own  writing. 
No  one  approaching  the  subject  from  the  historical  stand- 
point could  disparage  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness  of 
the  events  described;  only  the  important  fact  to  keep 
before  us  is  that  even  on  the  failure  to  establish  its 
Johannine  authorship  the  book  does  not  cease  to  be 
historical.  Its  facts  were  probably  drawn  from  the  same 
common  stock  as  those  of  the  synoptists,  and  in  general 
character  agree  with  theirs,  while  the  great  unifying  idea 
had  been  more  or  less  consciously  present  in  the  society 
from  the  first. 

The  main  difference  between  this  gospel  and  the  others 
is  one  that  relates  to  the  Person  of  Jesus,  or,  as  we  should 
perhaps  rather  say,  is  to  be  found  in  the  different  account 
here  given  of  Jesus'  own  revelation  of  the  doctrine  of  His 
Person.  In  the  other  gospels  we  have  seen  Jesus'  revela- 
tion of  His  work  and  Person  represented  as  a  gradual 
process.  This  does  not  in  the  least  necessarily  involve 
the  supposition  of  a  development  in  Jesus'  own  ideas  in 
this  regard.  There  is  strong  evidence  for  the  view  that 
from  the  earliest  commencement  of  the  public  ministry, 
and  probably  long  before,  there  had  been  present  to 
Jesus'  consciousness  the   idea  not  merely  of  the  long- 


ST.  JOHN   AND   THE  SYNOPTISTS       153 

expected  kingdom  of  God  as  the  eternal  kingdom  of 
God's  spiritual  children,  but  also  of  Himself  as  the 
supreme  representative  of  ^^iritual  sonship  to  God,  and 
therefore  the  inevitable  centre  of  the  kingdom,  answering 
to  the  Jewish  expectation  of  the  Messiah,  without  whom 
the  kingdom  of  God  among  men  would  not  have  been 
and  could  not  be.  The  sense  of  supreme  sonship  to  God 
formed,  as  we  have  seen,  the  basis  of  all  other  claims* 
Jesus  regarded  Himself  as  the  Son  of  Man  most  closely 
related  to  God :  therefore  He  was  the  head  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  sons  of  men  who  desire  to  become  sons  of 
God — the  true  Messiah  of  the  true  Israel.  There  may 
have  been  development  in  detail :  the  realisation  of  the 
necessity  of  suffering  for  the  perfecting  of  His  work,  with 
all  that  it  implied,  may  only  have  been  borne  in  upon 
Him  in  the  course  of  a  bitter  experience  of  rejection  by 
His  own  people,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  synoptic 
records  to  indicate  any  uncertainty  in  Jesus'  own  mind 
from  the  first  as  to  the  cardinal  ideas  of  divine  sonship 
and  spiritual  Messiahship. 

On  the  other  hand,  with  regard  to  the  revelation  of  all 
this  to  others,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  true  view 
is  that  which  represents  this  as  gradual,  and  which  sees 
the  life's  work  as  one  of  slow  preparation  leading  up  to 
a  final  revelation  in  the  great  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi. 
Even  apart  from  any  view  as  to  the  value  of  the  records, 
such  an  account  would  strike  us  as  being  in  harmony  with 
all  the  ordinary  conditions  of  human  life.  Only  gradually 
would  it  be  possible  for  Jesus  to  reveal  His  conception  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  spiritual  society  and  of  His  own 
spiritual  relation  to  it  to  His  most  intimate  disciples,  and 
more  gradually  still  to  the  common  people.  Even  at 
Caesarea  Philippi  we  see  that  there  was  a  danger  of  mis- 
apprehension not  merely  from  the  world  at  large,  but 
among  the  disciples  themselves :  only  so  can  we  explain 


154  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

the  stern  rebuke  to  St.  Peter,  and  the  strict  injunctions  as 
to  secrecy.  There  was  apparently  a  real  danger  that  the 
populace  might  seek  to  make  Jesus  a  king  by  force,  and 
thus  cause  His  death  to  bear  for  all  time  a  character 
wholly  different  from  that  which  it  now  actually  bears, 
appearing,  as  it  would  have  done,  as  the  result  of  an 
unwarrantable  intrusion  upon  things  that  were  Caesar's, 
instead  of  what  it  really  was,  and  what  it  now  must 
always  appear,  a  death  solely  brought  about  by  loyalty  to 
His  own  deepest  consciousness  of  truth. 

The  final  revelation  was  necessarily  gradual,  but,  when 
once  that  revelation  had  been  given,  it  was  inevitable  that 
the  whole  past  life  should  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  it, 
changing  in  colour  and  in  character  as  a  landscape 
changes  with  or  without  the  sun.  The  revelation  once 
given  and  pondered  over,  as  we  must  remember,  in  hours 
of  long  regret,  the  view  that  it  involved  and  no  other 
became  the  important  one  to  portray  for  all  the  world 
to  see  and  know.  "These  are  written  that  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
that,  believing,  ye  might  have  life  through  His  name." 

The  simple  tradition  of  the  facts  of  the  life  remained, 
but  side  by  side  with  that  the  final  revelation  with  all 
that  it  involved  was  winning  its  way  gradually  to  a  position 
of  supreme  importance.  On  the  main  issue  there  is  no 
contradiction  between  the  gospels.  The  other  evangelists 
are  all  more  or  less  affected  by  a  tendency  which  cul- 
minates in  the  fourth,  as  when  St.  Matthew  views  every- 
thing with  reference  to  prophecy  and  the  Jewish  expectation 
of  the  Messiah ;  only  in  St.  John's  Gospel  not  merely  is 
Jesus  all  that  He  is  to  the  others,  but  He  is  that  from  the 
very  first  to  St.  John  the  Baptist  and  to  the  disciples. 
When  once  we  realise  that  this  change  was  natural  and 
inevitable,  it  becomes  easy  to  allow  for  it  in  regard  to 
small   points   of  historical   detail :   in  its  main  tendency 


DOCTRINE   OF   CHRIST'S   PERSON       155 

it  represented,  as  we  have  shown,  a  true  instinct  and  leads 
us  by  the  only  way. 

For  in  fact  the  personality  of  Jesus  was  to  the  first 
disciples  and  is  still  the  centre  of  the  kingdom  and  of 
all  the  teaching.  Take  that  away,  and  the  significance 
of  all  the  rest  is  lost.  For  them,  however,  as  for  us,  it  was 
a  life's  revelation  leading  gradually  to  a  doctrine.  And 
so  when  St.  Mark  represents  this  revelation  as  gradual, 
and  St.  John  describes  an  immediate  proclamation  of 
Messiahship  on  the  part  of  the  Baptist  and  of  Jesus 
Himself,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  which  view 
we  shall  choose.  To  the  Church  it  came  to  seem  in- 
evitable that  facts  so  obvious  must  have  been  recognised 
from  the  beginning,  and  we  can  understand  the  mistake 
of  perspective  in  an  uncritical  age  while  accepting  the 
truth  of  the  judgment  that  it  involves.  And  so  again 
when  in  St.  John  the  preaching  of  the  kingdom  fades 
into  insignificance  in  comparison  with  the  revelation  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Jesus  and  the  new  life  in 
Him,  we  shall  none  the  less  believe  that  it  was  with 
the  existing  ideas  of  righteousness  and  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  that  the  teaching  began,  in  accordance  with  the 
whole  tendency  of  that  teaching  and  its  appeal  to  known 
facts ;  the  mode  of  interpretation  of  these  old  ideas  and 
the  authority  of  the  handling  leading  only  gradually, 
however  inevitably,  to  the  conception  of  the  true  character 
of  the  Teacher.  Without  a  previous  knowledge  of  the 
nature  of  the  kingdom,  the  new  idea  of  the  Messiah  could 
never  have  been  grasped.  Yet  we  must  always  remember 
that  to  those  first  disciples  in  actual  presence  of  the 
Teacher  the  revelation  of  His  Person  was  in  fact  granted 
day  by  day  from  the  very  first,  and  to  give  the  sense 
of  this  is  the  aim  of  the  fourth  evangelist.  "  Locutus  est 
multa,  sed  prope  omnia  de  caritate."  Side  by  side  with 
the  attempt  which  we  have  already  noticed  to  express 


156  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

the  inner  principle  and  spirit  of  the  life,  there  is  found 
quite  naturally  blended  this  developed  revelation  of  the 
Person. 

In  view  of  the  main  point  to  be  illustrated,  the  fourth 
evangelist  has  made  careful  choice  among  the  facts  of  a 
wide  tradition.  The  events  described  belong  for  the  most 
part  to  a  period  subsequent  to  that  selected  for  portrayal  by 
the  other  evangelists.  The  discourses  also,  whatever  their 
setting,  would  seem  to  be  largely  made  up  of  sayings 
of  a  later  date  than  the  scene  at  Caesarea  Philippi :  they 
are  thus  concerned  not  so  much  with  disputes  with  the 
Pharisees  affecting  the  interpretation  of  the  law  or  the 
nature  of  righteousness  as  with  the  conflict  with  the 
priests  at  Jerusalem  in  regard  to  Jesus'  Person  and 
Messiahship.  At  the  same  time  there  would  seem  to 
Wfbe  everywhere  a  conscious  grouping  of  the  sayings  accord- 
ing to  subject-matter  rather  than  to  circumstance.  The 
fragmentary  and  occasional  utterances  have  been  fused 
by  memory  and  reflection  into  the  long  discourse,  and 
as  a  result  we  here  miss  to  a  large  extent  the  spontaneity 
and  sudden  aptness  which  are  so  characteristic  of  the 
picture  drawn  by  the  other  evangelists,  and  which  so 
often  lead  us  to  say  that,  whatever  the  verdict  in  regard 
to  this  or  that  portion  of  the  document,  this  saying  or 
this  act  could  only  have  been  His.  More  and  more 
does  one  come  to  feel  that  in  this  respect  the  synoptic 
account  of  the  teaching- method  is  the  true  one,  even 
when  all  allowance  has  been  made  for  a  more  learned 
audience  in  these  later  days  and  for  all  that  had  to  be 
brought  together  into  the  short  space  of  these  final  charges 
to  the  chosen  friends.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
elaborately  worked  out  parable,  so  dear  to  the  common 
mind,  is  wholly  absent  from  the  fourth  gospel,  though 
the  parabolic  illustration  and  figurative  mode  of  expression 
in   the   material   images   of  common   life   is   everywhere 


I 


GOD'S   FATHERHOOD  IS7 

retained.  Probably  no  one  would  be  found  to  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  such  illustrations  as  those  of  the  Good 
Shepherd,  the  True  Vine,  the  Light,  the  Way,  the  Living 
Water,  the  Father's  House,  and  many  more,  though  many 
might  question  the  verbal  accuracy  of  the  report.  The 
omission  of  all  that  apparently  irrelevant  detail,  which 
we  saw  to  be  so  important  a  feature  of  the  genuine 
parable,  is  in  itself  a  remarkable  point  of  difference, 
though  possibly  to  be  explained  to  some  extent  by  the 
change  in  the  character  of  the  audience.  But  in  fact 
it  is  here  as  elsewhere  with  this  gospel.  Differences 
there  are — due,  it  may  be,  to  a  change  in  the  character 
of  the  audience,  it  may  be,  to  a  later  date  and  points 
chosen  for  special  emphasis — but  when  all  is  said,  we 
still  feel  that  the  substantial  fact  is  always  there :  in 
scenes  like  those  with  Nicodemus,  or  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  or  Martha  and  Mary,  the  record  is  in  some  sense 
the  record  of  one  who  saw,  whether  that  one  were  St.  John 
or  some  other  eye-witness  whose  experience  became  part 
of  the  common  tradition  of  the  Church. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  main  ideas  of  the  teaching.  In 
St.  John,  as  in  the  other  evangelists,  the  central  doctrine 
of  Jesus'  teaching  is  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  Round  this 
all  else  revolves.  God  is  first  known  as  the  Father  of 
Jesus  Himself,  in  union  with  whom  alone  all  His  work 
is  done,  and  whose  love  is  the  source  of  all  His  knowledge, 
life,  and  power.  God  is  also  the  Father  of  all  men,  seeking 
men  to  worship  Him  as  their  Father  in  heaven,  and  as 
a  Father  certain  to  hear  their  prayers.  He  is  also  revealed 
as  a  spirit ;  He  is  living ;  He  is  holy,  and  as  a  holy  Father 
His  love  grants  holiness  to  men.  "  Holy  Father,  make 
them  holy  in  the  truth."  Here,  as  in  the  other  evangelists 
and  in  complete  contrast  with  the  tendencies  of  current 
thought,  the  idea  is  that  of  a  God  who  is  not  far  away, 
unconcerned  with   sinners,  and   to  be  won   only  by  the 


158  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

stern  details  of  legal  service,  but  rather  of  One  whose 
holiness  is  so  combined  with  love  that  His  will  is  to 
impart  it  in  the  fullest  measure  to  men,  so  that  not  one 
of  them  may  perish,  but  all  may  come  to  the  truth.  It 
is  the  same  love  that  in  the  parable  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel 
sees  the  lost  son  when  he  is  still  a  great  way  off. 

At  the  same  time,  we  are  bound  to  notice  that  side 
by  side  with  this  teaching  there  are  to  be  found  traces 
in  this  gospel  of  a  different  line  of  thought.  In  many 
passages  the  world  is  here  represented  as  severed  from 
God  in  a  more  complete  and  absolute  sense  than  is  known 
to  the  other  evangelists,  while  even  the  most  casual  reader 
could  hardly  fail  to  notice  that  the  tone  of  the  great 
passage  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  speaks  of  the 
clothing  of  the  lilies  and  of  God's  intimate  and  pervading 
care  of  the  universe,  is  here  absent.  This  is  precisely  one 
of  those  points  that  we  may  attribute  to  the  general 
tendency  of  the  book.  In  the  other  gospels  God  is  shown 
as  in  a  measure  self-revealed  in  nature  for  those  who  have 
eyes  to  see,  though  the  opening  of  men's  eyes  to  see  Him 
there  may  be  Jesus'  work.  In  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  as 
the  emphasis  is  all  upon  the  importance  of  this  work 
of  Jesus,  God  is  less  seen  as  revealed  in  nature,  more  as 
exclusively  revealed  in  Him. 

Closely  bound  up  with  the  doctrine  of  God's  Fatherhood 
is  Jesus'  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  a  special  and 
peculiar  sense.  We  have  already  dwelt  upon  the  passage 
from  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  which  sums 
up  this  relationship :  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto  Me 
of  My  Father,  and  no  man  knoweth  what  the  Son  is  but 
the  Father,  and  what  the  Father  is  but  the  Son,  and  he 
to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  it."  This  thought  is  de- 
veloped in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  in  infinite  detail.  In 
origin  Jesus  is  from  the  Father.  His  Father  knows  Him, 
loves  Him,  gives   Him   knowledge,  honour,  and   power; 


SONSHIP   TO  GOD  159 

while  on  the  other  hand  He  alone  has  seen  the  Father, 
and  speaks  what  He  has  seen  and  heard  from  Him. 
The  relationship  is  summed  up  in  the  statement,  "  I  and 
My  Father  are  one."  His  fellowship  with  God  is  felt  by- 
Jesus  to  be  something  so  intimate  that  it  does  not  begin 
with  earthly  birth  or  end  with  earthly  death.  Abraham 
rejoiced  to  see  it,  and  it  existed  before  Abraham  and 
before  the  world.  Death  is  for  Jesus  but  going  His  way 
to  Him  who  sent  Him — a  return  to  the  eternal  glory  of  the 
heavenly  sonship. 

It  was  this  claim  that  formed  the  basis  of  the  charge 
of  blasphemy  —  a  charge  which  on  one  occasion  is 
characteristically  met  by  Jesus  by  a  quotation  from  the 
Old  Testament.  "  The  Jews  answered  Him,  saying.  For 
a  good  work  we  stone  Thee  not ;  but  for  blasphemy ;  and 
because  Thou,  being  a  man,  makest  Thyself  God.  Jesus 
answered  them,  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said, 
Ye  are  gods  ?  If  he  called  them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word 
of  God  came,  and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken  :  say 
ye  of  Him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified,  and  sent  into 
the  world,  Thou  blasphemest :  because  I  said,  I  am  the 
Son  of  God  ? "  The  name  of  "  God  "  had  been  actually 
applied  to  those  who  received  the  divine  revelation  under 
the  old  dispensation.  Why,  then,  should  the  title  which 
He  now  chose  be  held  to  be  blasphemous  ?  The  passage 
shows  as  clearly  as  any  Jesus'  view  of  His  own  sonship, 
as  well  as  of  that  of  His  disciples.  In  fact,  though  He 
regards  Himself  as  being  the  Son  of  God  in  a  special 
sense,  yet  the  disciples  also  are  "  of  God "  ;  they  have 
God's  word ;  the  Father  loves  them,  and  will  give  them 
power  and  glory  and  complete  union  with  Jesus  and  with 
Himself  "  That  they  all  may  be  one ;  as  Thou,  Father, 
art  in  Me  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one 
in  us." 

From  this  peculiar  consciousness  of  sonship  flows  the 


i6o  THE   TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

consciousness  of  being  the  Messiah.  As  in  the  Synoptists 
the  title  of  Son  of  Man  is  here  used  by  Jesus  with  distinct 
Messianic  intention,  though  we  miss  any  gradual  revelation 
of  its  significance  such  as  we  found  in  them.  We  have 
seen  how  Jesus  would  seem  to  have  chosen  this  title  to 
express  His  Messiahship,  because  He  conceived  of  that 
office  as  involving  His  being  the  supreme  representative 
of  the  race  of  men.  But  in  this  Gospel  we  are  never 
allowed  to  approach  the  title  from  the  purely  human 
standpoint,  or  to  lose  sight  of  the  heavenly  origin  and 
destiny.  Son  of  Man  though  He  was,  He  came  down 
from  heaven  and  had  His  life  there;  He  gives  men 
heavenly  food ;  He  will  be  lifted  up  to  draw  all  men,  but 
He  will  return  to  execute  judgment. 

In  St.  John,  as  in  the  other  evangelists,  only  much  more 
clearly,  the  death  of  Jesus  is  seen  as  the  result  of  His 
devotion  to  the  truth  of  His  revelation — His  vision  of  God 
and  of  His  own  relation  to  God,  in  opposition  to  the 
ignorance  of  His  adversaries.  This  devotion  is  the  fruit 
of  His  love  to  God  and  to  men,  and  is  purely  voluntary. 
"  I  lay  down  My  life,  no  man  taketh  it  from  Me,  but  I  lay 
it  down  of  Myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and 
I  have  power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment 
have  I  received  of  My  Father " ;  the  commandment,  that 
is  to  say,  to  be  faithful  to  this  loving  duty  of  revelation. 
As  in  the  rebuke  to  St.  Peter  at  Caesarea,  we  are  allowed 
to  see  that  this  devotion  involved  an  inner  conflict.  "  The 
prince  of  this  world  cometh  and  hath  nothing  in  Me: 
but  the  world  shall  know  that  I  love  the  Father,  and 
as  the  Father  gave  Me  commandment  even  so  I  do." 
There  is  here  a  fixed  resolve  in  face  of  temptation  on 
no  account  to  abandon  the  task  set  before  Him.  Death 
as  the  utmost  sacrifice  was  to  crown  the  life,  vanquishing 
the  prince  of  this  world  and  of  selfishness,  and  once  for 
all  exalting  love  and  devotion  to  duty  as  the  only  standard 


REDEMPTION  i6i 

of  conduct.  Without  this  utmost  sacrifice  the  work  is  seen 
to  be  imperfect :  "  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the 
ground  and  die  it  abideth  alone."  With  it  the  world  is  to 
be  won :  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 
men  unto  Me."  Viewed  as  the  result  of  devotion  and  the 
sign  of  the  most  faithful  obedience,  the  death  became  the 
revelation  of  a  new  standard:  "That  ye  love  one  another  as 
I  have  loved  you  " ;  "  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this, 
that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends."  Jesus' 
supreme  consecration  of  His  life  was  to  lead  to  similar 
consecration  in  His  disciples,  and  to  win  them  through 
that  to  peace  and  freedom  and  victory  over  the  world. 

We  saw  that  the  words,  "for  the  remission  of  sins," 
attributed  to  Jesus  by  St.  Matthew  on  the  occasion  of  the 
institution  of  the  Eucharist,  were  probably  of  the  nature 
of  a  comment  upon  the  original  words.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  opening  testimony  of  the  Baptist  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John,  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  The  comment  in 
both  cases  is  seen  to  have  been  not  merely  justified,  but 
inevitable,  when  once  men  came  to  realise  the  height  of 
Jesus'  standard  and  achievement  together  with  their  own 
weakness  and  the  true  character  and  awfulness  of  sin.  The 
mistake  of  subsequent  writers  has  lain  in  placing  the 
emphasis  too  exclusively  upon  the  death  of  Jesus  as  the 
means  of  redemption.  The  faith  that  brings  forgiveness, 
as  St.  John's  Gospel  makes  quite  clear,  is  faith  in  a  living 
person  and  in  His  life  of  willing  sacrifice  seen  as  a  proof 
of  love  to  God  and  men.  The  true  life  lies  in  the  assimila- 
tion of  the  human  life  to  the  life  of  God.  The  true  life 
therefore  is  one  sacrifice  to  love,  of  which  death  is  the 
consummation  and  final  proof.  It  was  perhaps  natural 
that  later  writers  should  take  the  death  as  the  symbol 
of  the  whole :  the  loss  thereby  involved  has  none  the  less 
been  serious,  seeing  that  it  is  this  that  has  all  too  often 


i62  THE  TEACHING   OF  CHRIST 

obscured  the  full  glory  and  brightness  of  Jesus'  doctrine 
of  God.  We  cannot  be  too  often  reminded  that  the 
central  idea  of  Jesus'  teaching  is  that  of  God  as  a  loving 
Father,  and  that  it  is  this  that  forms  the  sole  basis  of  the 
hope  of  forgiveness,  as  it  is  the  spring  of  all  true  conduct 
whether  in  Jesus  or  in  His  followers.  "  As  the  Father  hath 
loved  Me,  so  have  I  loved  you :  continue  ye  in  My  love." 
It  is  the  perfect  love  of  God  that  demands  a  return  of 
perfect  love  manifested  in  obedience  to  His  will  in  sacrifice 
for  men.  This  Jesus  gave,  winning  others  thereby,  and 
entered  into  His  glory ;  this  others  are  to  seek  to  give  in 
Him.  The  unity  in  love  of  St.  John,  "  that  they  all  may 
be  one,"  follows  out  the  thought  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount:  "Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father 
in  heaven  is  perfect,"  or  that  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  where 
the  entry  into  the  kingdom  of  forgiveness  is  an  entry 
through  love :  "  forgive  us  as  we  forgive." 

We  have  spoken  once  more  of  "the  kingdom."  It  is 
a  phrase  that  only  occurs  twice  in  St.  John's  Gospel,  and 
both  times  in  the  dialogue  with  Nicodemus :  "  Except  a 
man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  " ; 
"Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Almost  im- 
mediately in  that  same  discourse  the  idea  of  "life"  is 
substituted  for  that  of  "  the  kingdom "  and  retained 
throughout  the  Gospel.  It  is  a  change  for  which  certain 
usages  of  the  phrase,  "the  kingdom  of  God,"  in  the 
synoptists  have  already  prepared  us.  Once  the  kingdom 
of  God  can  be  described  as  "  within  you,"  it  is  only  a  step 
to  substitute  for  it  the  conception  of  "  life."  And  as  in 
St.  John  the  kingdom  is  from  the  first  seen  to  centre 
in  and  be  dependent  upon  the  living  personality  of  Jesus, 
so  "  life "  becomes  the  appropriate  summary  of  the  ideas 
hitherto  covered  by  the  phrase  "  the  kingdom  of  God " ; 
"  living  "  is  now  the  equivalent  for  "  seeing  "  or  "  entering 


I 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  LIFE  163 

into"  the  kingdom.  It  makes  no  practical  difference 
whether  the  term  used  is  "life"  or  "life  eternal."  The 
conception  of  "  eternal  life "  not  as  belonging  only  to 
another  world,  but  to  this  no  less,  is  everywhere  prominent 
in  the  discourses  of  this  Gospel ;  it  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
not  absent  from  the  records  of  the  other  evangelists.  All 
true  life,  whether  here  or  hereafter,  is  seen  to  be  dependent 
upon  union  with  God.  This  involves  the  doctrine  of  its 
continuance,  for  a  union  with  God  that  ended  with  earthly 
death  would  not  be  worth  the  name. 

This  same  dialogue  with  Nicodemus  brings  the  concep- 
tion of  life  into  close  relation  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit,  of  which  we  have  purposely  reserved  our  discussion 
to  the  close,  not  as  being  a  subject  confined  to  this  gospel, 
but  as  being  brought  into  greater  prominence  here  than 
elsewhere.  From  the  earliest  commencement  of  His 
ministry,  as  recorded  by  the  synoptists,  Jesus  represents 
His  life  and  work  as  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  In  St.  Luke  the  prophecy  that  He  selects  to 
describe  His  mission  is  one  that  refers  everything  to  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit :  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon 
Me."  And  in  St.  Matthew  the  overcoming  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  the  kingdom  in  the  casting  out  of  evil  spirits  is 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  "  If  I  cast  out  devils  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto 
you." 

In  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  this  doctrine  is  more  fully 
developed  in  expression,  but  the  development  is  entirely 
upon  the  lines  of  Jesus'  thought  as  we  have  already  traced 
them  elsewhere.  In  the  opening  discourse  with  Nicodemus, 
in  analogy  with  Jesus'  own  experience  as  recorded  by  St. 
Luke,  the  entry  of  each  individual  soul  into  the  life  of  the 
kingdom  is  represented  as  a  new  birth  under  the  influence 
of  the  Spirit :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."     That  new 


i64  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST 

birth  is  characterised  in  a  simile  that  exactly  described 
Jesus'  own  freedom  of  judgment  and  selection  in  dealing 
with  the  world  and  ideas  as  He  found  them — a  freedom 
that  must  often  have  seemed  so  inexplicable  to  the  men 
of  His  time :  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and 
thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence 
it  Cometh  or  whither  it  goeth ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born 
of  the  Spirit."  And  then,  as  these  Johannine  discourses, 
belonging  as  we  have  seen  for  the  most  part  probably 
to  the  closing  period,  describe  for  us  the  fully  developed, 
or,  if  we  reject  any  theory  of  development,  fully  revealed 
Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus  based  on  the  conscious- 
ness of  union  with  God  in  perfect  sonship,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Spirit  takes  a  new  significance.  While  present  with 
the  disciples  Jesus  Himself  reveals  the  Spirit  as  He  reveals 
God  ;  and  so  perfect  is  the  union  that  there  is  no  need 
to  consider  them  apart.  Towards  the  close,  in  view  of  His 
approaching  departure.  He  promises  to  send  from  the 
Father  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  on  the  one  hand  will 
recall  His  teaching,  and  on  the  other  will  guide  His 
disciples  amid  all  new  difficulties  and  emergencies.  Only 
with  the  full  revelation  of  the  perfection  of  the  divine 
sonship  could  come  the  full  revelation  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Spirit :  "  He  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring 
all  things  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said 
unto  you."  "All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are  Mine; 
therefore  said  I  that  He  shall  take  of  Mine  and  shall  show 
it  unto  you."  The  death  perfecting  the  sacrifice  of  the 
life  would  be  the  seal  of  His  eternal  union  with  the  Father, 
and  so  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  of  God  would  be  the 
coming  of  His  Spirit.  As  His  fellowship  with  the  Father, 
so  far  from  being  broken,  was  but  perfected  through  death, 
so  was  His  fellowship  with  the  disciples.  The  coming 
of  the  Spirit  following  on  the  death  involved  His  own 
continued   presence    in    and   with   the   disciples   and   the 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF  THE   SPIRIT        165 

Church.  It  thus  seems  almost  a  matter  of  indifference 
whether  He  speaks  of  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  or  of  His 
own  coming :  "  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless ;  I  will 
come  to  you."  And  no  one  who  has  ever  felt  the  import- 
ance of  the  personal  element  in  the  teaching,  or  who  has 
come  to  realise  that  to  ignore  it  in  the  slightest  degree 
is  to  be  unhistorical  and  untrue  to  the  best  records  that  we 
possess,  can  fail  to  see  that  this  insistence  on  His  own 
continued  presence  is  not  an  accident,  but  an  essential 
feature  in  the  teaching.  The  indwelling  Spirit  is  the  life 
of  the  Church,  as  the  living  Jesus  was  the  life  of  His 
society  while  on  earth.  The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  has 
only  been  neglected  where  the  doctrine  of  Jesus'  Person 
has  not  been  realised. 

The  value  of  this  living  personal  element  is  the  one  point 
that  has  emerged  in  the  course  of  this  long  argument. 
We  began,  as  the  men  of  that  day  must  have  begun,  with 
the  fragmentary  utterance,  the  occasional  act;  through 
these  we  endeavoured  to  rise  to  the  general  and  connecting 
ideas,  and  with  them,  whether  in  St.  John  or  in  the  other 
evangelists,  we  passed  at  once  to  something  that  is  wholly 
inexplicable  and  unique — Jesus'  own  religious  conscious- 
ness and  the  doctrine  of  His  person.  Conscious  of 
possessing  a  deeper  knowledge  of  God  and  of  God's 
will  than  any  others  had  obtained,  He  was  conscious  also 
of  giving  expression  to  that  will  in  His  life  in  a  truer 
sense  than  they  :  "  Which  of  you  convinceth  Me  of  sin  ?  " 
Without  that  life  of  insight  and  sacrifice,  perfected  by 
obedient  loyalty  even  unto  death  in  response  to  the  love 
of  God,  men  would  have  had  no  revelation  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  or  of  life  or  of  salvation.  Hence  it  is  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  that  the  world  is  redeemed,  and  His  life  is 
given  to  win  mankind.  His  presence  is  a  continued 
presence  in  and  through  the  Spirit  of  God.  His  personal 
power  is   still  a   living  force,  and  without  His  personal 


i66  THE   TEACHING   OF  CHRIST 

claim  and  call  Christianity  would  not  have  been  and  could 
not  be.  "  Come  unto  Me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  My  yoke  upon  you, 
and  learn  of  Me ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  of  heart ; 
and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls.  For  My  yoke 
is  easy,  and  My  burden  is  light."  That  is  the  call  and 
promise  that  must  win  and  hold  the  world.  The  kingdom 
of  God  and  life  eternal  were  then  and  are  now  and 
will  be  for  ever  Jesus  Christ :  cui  sit  gloria  in  scecula. 
Amen. 


IV. 

THE  PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  . 
VALUE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

By  C.  F.  BURNEY 


Title  of  the  Essay  .  .  .  ... 

I.  Short  summary  of  the  critical  position. 

1.  Recognition  of  the  "  human  element "  in  the  composition  of  the 

Old  Testament         .  .  .  ... 

2.  Reconstruction  of   the  traditional  conception  of  the  growth  of 

Israel's  religion         .  .  .  ... 

3.  Readjustment  of  the  date  of  various  portions  of  the  literature 

II.  How  far  does  adoption  of  the  new  position  affect  the  religious  value 

of  the  Old  Testament? 

1.  Over  a  large  area  this  religious  value  must,  upon  any  view,  stand 

untouched. 

Spiritual  value  .                .                .  .  ... 

Moral  value       .                .                .  .  ... 

2.  Beyond  this,  it  may  be  argued  that  the  results  of  criticism  are 

tending  towards  the  confirmation  of  the  Faith. 

A.  Method  of  Old  Testament  criticism  constructive  and  therefore 

apologetic  .  .  .  ... 

B.  Recognition  of  the  human  element  in  the  Old  Testament  serves  to 

emphasise  the  reality  of  the  divine  element. 
Perception  of  the  working  of  "  the  purpose  of  God  according  to 

selection"  .  .  .  .  .         . 

Clearer  understanding  of  the  character  and  importance  of  the  Messianic 

expectation  .  .  .  ... 

Canons  for  the  study  of  prophecy  by  the  critical  method 
Comparison  of  the  evidential  value  of  Messianic  prophecy  studied  by 

the  old  and  new  methods  .  .  ... 

Brief  outline  of  results  obtained  through  the  critical  method 
The  King- Messiah  and  his  kingdom  .  .  .         . 

The  Servant  of  Jehovah  and  his  work  .  •  »         • 

167 


Page 
168 


169 

170 
172 


173 
174 


177 


179 

181 
183 

184 
18s 
187 
191 


i68     PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

Pag« 
III.  Answer  to  the  objection  that  our  Lord's  acceptance  of  the  tra- 
ditional views  of  His  times,  as  to  the  date  and  authorship  of 
the  Old  Testament  books,  has  foreclosed  questions  of  historical 
criticism. 

1.  Upon  any  theory  of  our  Lord's  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament, 

it  cannot  be  supposed  that  He  would  have  done  otherwise  than 
acquiesce  in  current  views  upon  questions  which  fall  within  the 
domain  of  criticism  .  ,  .  .         .     196 

2.  Our  Lord's  true  humanity  implies  limitation  in  His  human  know- 

ledge. Thus  His  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  must  have 
been  acquired  by  study,  and  in  questions  of  date  and  authorship 
He  would  adopt  the  views  of  His  times  .  .         .198 

3.  Such  a  limitation  in  our  Lord's  human  knowledge  does  not  affect 

His  infallibility  within  the  sphere  of  faith  and  morals         .         .     200 

4.  Consideration  of   special  cases  of  citation:    Psalm  ex.,  Jonah, 

Deuteronomy  .  .  .  ...     201 

IN  entering  upon  the  subject  of  this  essay,  it  is,  perhaps, 
desirable  to  guard  against  a  possible  misapprehension. 

The  choice  of  such  a  title  as  "  the  permanent  religious 
value  of  the  Old  Testament "  may  possibly  seem  to  imply, 
or  to  suggest,  that  at  the  hands  of  critical  investigation 
the  Old  Testament  scriptures  have  suffered  loss ;  that 
where  for  former  generations  they  possessed,  or  at  least 
appeared  to  possess,  a  distinctive  spiritual  value,  now  for 
us  this  value  has  been  diminished ;  that  we  of  to-day  can 
only  hope  to  gather  up  the  fragments  of  a  shattered  idol, 
and  that  we  must  scrutinise  with  care  our  right  to  hold 
these  fragments,  lest  perchance  even  they  should  finally  be 
wrested  from  our  grasp. 

This  is  not  the  sense  in  which  the  title  is  used. 

It  is  intended  rather  to  indicate  that,  with  the  advance 
of  critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  certain 
traditional  views  with  regard  to  their  authorship  and 
contents  have  come  to  be  modified  or  even  abandoned, 
and  that  this  progress  in  knowledge  has  tended  to  create 
the  apprehension  lest  something  such  as  has  been  described 
may  have  come  about — lest,  that  is  to  say,  the  books 
may  have  become  discredited,  and  their  religious  value 
minimised  or  annulled.      If,  however,  upon  examination 


POSITION   OF   CRITICISM  169 

such  an  apprehension  prove  to  be  unfounded,  it  is  clear 
that  the  reh'gious  value  of  the  Old  Testament  writings 
must  appear  to  rest  upon  a  far  more  permanent  and 
satisfactory  basis  than  before.  And  still  more  must  this 
religious  value  be  enhanced,  if  the  results  obtained  by 
historical  criticism  can  be  shown  to  issue,  not  merely  in 
no  sort  of  real  loss,  but  in  fact  in  a  very  decided  gain. 

Let  us  review  in  very  brief  outline  some  of  the  chief 
results  obtained  by  the  higher  criticism^  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  it  may  be  understood  to  what  extent 
they  conflict  with,  and  supersede,  the  old  traditional 
views.2 

Firstly,  it  may  be  said  generally  that  this  criticism 
starts  with  the  claim  to  deal  with  the  Old  Testament 
writings  scientifically,  i.e.  in  accordance  with  ordinary 
historical  methods,  and  that,  by  application  of  these 
methods,  it  appears  to  have  substantiated  the  claim  at 
first  put  forward,  and  to  have  proved  that  the  old  view 
of  verbal  inspiration  is  no  longer  tenable. 

There  is  in  the  composition  of  the  Old  Testament  a 
large  human  element,  and  the  literature  which  it  embodies 
appears  to  have  grown  up  in  much  the  same  way  as  any 
other   ancient   literature.      In   the   background   we  have 

^  Higher  criticism  concerns  itself  with  questions  as  to  the  composition, 
authorship,  date,  and  historical  value  of  an  ancient  document,  as  these  may  be 
judged  from  internal  evidence.  The  term  is  used  in  contrast  to  lower  (more 
frequently  called  textual)  criticism,  which  is  confined  simply  to  the  state  of  the 
text,  and  seeks  to  ascertain  its  original  form,  freed  from  the  errors  which  are 
incidental  to  the  transmission  of  ancient  manuscripts.  Thus  the  adjective 
higher  defines  nothing  more  than  the  relation  of  this  class  of  criticism  to  the 
pther  ;  and  the  best  descriptive  antithesis  to  textual  is  historical. 

When  opponents  of  the  critical  method  as  applied  to  the  Old  Testament 
speak  of  "the  so-called  higher  criticism,"  or  frame  the  expression  in  inverted 
commas,  the  inference  must  be  drawn  that  they  are  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of 
the  term,  and  imagine  that  it  implies  an  assumption  of  higher  powers  on  the 
part  of  the  critics. 

^  For  an  account  of  the  principal  results  of  the  historical  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  evidence  upon  which  they  are  based,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament ^  and 
to  Robertson  Smith's  Old  Ttstament  in  the  [ewish  Chtirch. 


170    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

traditions,  more  or  less  obscure,  as  to  the  origin  and 
early  development  of  the  Hebrew  race,  traditions  which 
frequently  exist  in  duplicate  with  considerable  divergence 
in  detail,  and  which  sometimes  reflect  the  colour  of  the 
later  age  in  which  they  were  put  into  writing. 

From  the  mass  of  these  traditions  that  which  is  historical 
is  seen  gradually  to  evolve  itself,  at  first  scarcely  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  traditional,  then  more  definitely 
bearing  the  stamp  of  authenticity,  and  approving  itself 
by  the  manner  in  which  it  tallies  with  the  contemporary 
records  of  other  nations,  notably  with  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions. But,  even  in  these  later  and  undoubtedly 
authentic  narratives,  it  is  clear  that  in  many  cases  the 
compiler  of  ancient  sources  has  allowed  himself  some 
latitude  in  the  interpretation  of  history,  and,  especially 
in  the  case  of  speeches  of  some  length,  has  expanded  and 
adapted  so  as  to  reflect  into  an  earlier  age  the  religious 
standpoint  of  his  own  day. 

And  in  all  this,  what  is  historical  and  what  merely 
traditional  can  only  be  determined  by  just  the  same 
methods  as  are  employed  in  dealing  with  the  literature 
of  Greece  and  Rome,  or  with  the  early  records  of  our 
own  country. 

Moreover,  critical  investigation  of  the  documents  has 
demonstrated  the  necessity  for  a  considerable  shifting  and 
rearrangement  of  the  old  traditional  conception  as  to  the 
growth  of  Israel's  religion  and  civilisation.  Whereas 
formerly  it  was  usual  to  speak  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  and  to  regard  the  former  as  delivered  in  its 
entirety  at  an  early  period  by  Moses,  and  as  considerably 
anterior  to  the  latter,  now  it  is  clear  that  very  much  the 
reverse  was  really  the  case.  Not  only  do  the  earlier 
prophets  appear  to  have  known  nothing  of  any  large 
codified  body  of  laws  regarded  as  a  divine  institution, 
but   these   laws   exhibit   among  themselves   considerable 


POSITION   OF   CRITICISM  171 

diversity,  and  are  clearly  not  all  the  work  of  one  man 
or  the  product  of  one  age.  Rather,  they  consist  of 
separate  collections,  promulgated  at  very  different  ages  ; 
the  later,  owing  to  changed  circumstances,  frequently  in 
matter  of  details  superseding  and  annulling  the  earlier. 

Thus,  the  earliest  elements  in  the  Pentateuch  legislation 
are  undoubtedly  the  Decalogue  (Exod.  xx.  1-17),  and  the 
primitive  collection  of  laws  contained  in  Exodus  xxxiv. 
1 1-27. 

Then  there  may  be  placed  the  so-called  "  Book  of  the 
Covenant"  (Exod.  xx.  23-xxiii.  33),  a  brief  code  dating 
from  an  early  period  and  designed  to  regulate  the  life  of 
a  community  living  under  simple  conditions  and  devoting 
itself  chiefly  to  agriculture. 

At  a  much  later  date  appeared  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, this  being  without  doubt  the  Book  of  the  Law 
which  was  found  in  the  Temple  in  the  eighteeenth  year  of 
King  Josiah  (B.C.  621),  and  which  formed  the  prime  factor 
in  his  great  reformation  (2  Kings  xxii.  8-xxiii.  25). 

And  lastly  we  have  "  the  Priestly  Code,"  which,  together 
with  "  the  Law  of  Holiness  "  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.),  comprises 
the  main  body  of  laws  in  the  latter  part  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  and  appears  to  have  grown  up 
during  the  Exile,  and  to  have  attained  its  present  form 
probably  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century  B.C. 

Accordingly,  as  has  before  been  hinted,  the  prophets  of 
the  eighth  century,  Amos  and  Hosea,  Isaiah  and  Micah, 
seem  to  know  nothing  of  any  great  body  of  legislation 
bearing  the  august  sanction  of  the  name  of  Moses,  but 
are  acquainted  merely  with  simple  regulations  like  those 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  Jeremiah,  who  lived  at  the 
close  of  the  seventh  and  beginning  of  the  sixth  century, 
shows  acquaintance  with  Deuteronomy  and  is  largely 
influenced  by  it ;  and  the  same  is  the  case  with  the  com- 


172    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

piler  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  who  must  have  lived  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakim,  about  600  B.C.  Neither  of  these 
writers,  however,  shows  any  knowledge  of  the  Priestly- 
Code,  as  does  Ezekiel,  who  flourished  during  the  Exile, 
about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century.  And  even  Ezekiel 
appears  to  have  known  this  code,  not  in  its  final  form,  but, 
as  it  were,  during  its  growth  and  before  it  had  arrived  at 
its  completion. 

Thus  it  may  be  gathered  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 
regard  the  Law  as  a  whole  as  prior  to  the  Prophets ;  but 
that,  on  the  contrary  and  speaking  broadly,  the  prophetic 
stage  was  considerably  anterior  to  the  legalistic,  this  latter 
not  attaining  its  full  development  until  after  the  Exile. 

Another  result  of  the  application  of  historical  criticism 
to  the  Old  Testament  may  be  summarised  as  the  pushing 
of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  literature  down  to  a  late 
date,  into  exilic  and  post- exilic  times.  Many  books,  at 
one  time  thought  to  form  an  integral  whole,  are  now 
found  to  be  composite,  and  portions  of  these  are  con- 
siderably later  in  origin  than  was  traditionally  supposed. 
Thus,  to  take  the  most  outstanding  example,  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  has  been  shown  to  embody,  together  with  the 
authentic  writings  of  the  prophet,  many  elements  which 
must  be  assigned  to  exilic  and  post-exilic  times — notably 
the  whole  of  the  latter  part  of  the  book,  chapters  xl.-lxvi.; 
while  the  views  as  to  the  dates  of  other  complete  works 
— such  as  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Daniel — have  had  to 
undergo  considerable  modification.  Whereas,  again,  it  was 
formerly  believed  that  the  greater  portion  of  the  Psalter 
was  due  to  David,  now  it  appears  that  but  few  —  some 
would  maintain,  none  at  all — of  the  Psalms  can  be  as- 
cribed to  him,  and  that  probably  the  larger  number  were 
composed  during  or  after  the  Exile.  Thus  a  period  in 
Israel's  history,  in  the  past  regarded  as  rather  barren  in 
literary  products,  is  now  shown  to  have  been  comparatively 


THE  SPIRITUAL  SPHERE  173 

prolific,  while,  in  return,  the  earlier  ages  have  been  to  some 
extent  shorn  of  their  supposed  distinction. 

But  it  is  time  to  pass  on  from  this  necessarily  brief  and 
imperfect  review  of  the  results  of  the  higher  criticism,  and 
to  ask  the  question,  How  far  have  these  results  affected 
the  religious  value  of  the  Old  Testament? 

First  of  all,  it  ought  to  be  noticed  that  over  a  large  area 
the  religious  value  of  the  Old  Testament  stands  quite 
untouched  by  such  questions  as  can  be  raised  by  historical 
criticism.  In  that  sphere  which  we  may  call  the  spiritual, 
the  aspirations  of  the  human  soul  so  vividly  pourtrayed  in 
the  Psalms  and  in  passages  of  the  Prophets,  its  stretching 
forth  of  its  hands  after  God,  its  hanging  upon  Him,  its 
moments  of  deep  despair  transformed  as  in  an  instant  into 
the  triumph  of  joyful  hope,  its  outpourings  of  thanksgiving 
and  praise — all  these  must  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
remain  quite  unaffected  by  any  question  as  to  the  date 
or  authorship  of  the  writings  in  which  they  are  delineated. 
And  if  it  be  maintained  that  even  in  this  sphere  the 
effects  of  criticism  have  made  themselves  felt,  showing  in 
many  cases  that  these  ancient  prophets  and  poets  did  not 
intend  all  that  their  words  would  seem  to  convey  when 
viewed  in  the  different  atmosphere  of  a  later  age,  surely 
it  may  be  replied  that  this  consideration,  so  far  from 
minimising,  rather  increases  our  conviction  of  the  spiritual 
value  of  their  sentiments ;  that  the  response  which  these 
find  in  the  human  soul  to-day,  the  response  which  they 
have  found  in  the  human  soul  in  all  ages,  furnishes  ample 
proof  that  they  are  instinct  with  the  Divine  Spirit,  and 
that  this  Spirit  is  unfolding,  and  will  yet  unfold,  the 
deeper  truths  of  their  meaning.  It  is  fitting  in  this  con- 
nection to  quote  the  words  of  S.  T.  Coleridge  in  his 
Letters  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures :  "  Need  I  say 
that  I  have  met  everywhere  more  or  less  copious  sources 


174    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

of  truth,  and  power,  and  purifying  impulses;  that  I  have 
found  words  for  my  inmost  thoughts,  songs  for  my  joy, 
utterances  for  my  hidden  griefs,  and  pleadings  for  my 
shame  and  my  feebleness?  In  short,  whatever yf«^j  me, 
bears  witness  for  itself  that  it  has  proceeded  from  a  Holy 
Spirit,  *  which  remaining  in  itself,  yet  regenerateth  all  other 
powers,  and  in  all  ages  entering  into  holy  souls  maketh 
them  friends  of  God  and  prophets '  (Wisd.  vii.  27)." 

And  as  in  the  spiritual,  so  in  the  moral  sphere.  The 
prophets'  stern  denunciations  of  the  moral  evils  of  their 
times,  their  asseveration  that  Jehovah  desires  mercy,  or, 
as  we  might  render,  kindliness — the  feeling  of  the  moral 
obligation  which  binds  man  to  man — rather  than  sacrifice  ; 
"  He  hath  shown  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good ;  and  what 
doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love 
mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  ? "  (Micah  vi.  8) 
— the  assertions  of  such  great  moral  truths  must  still  have 
their  value  to-day,  in  whatever  age  and  under  whatever 
circumstances  they  were  first  uttered,  and  whether  their 
authors  be  known  or  unknown. 

Or  again,  to  take  any  of  the  great  outstanding  characters 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  to  take  them  even  from  the  earliest 
times,  and  from  narratives  in  which  history  seems  to  be 
inextricably  blended  with  legend,  it  will  scarcely  be  main- 
tained that  these  lose  their  value,  or  that  their  attractiveness 
is  in  any  way  diminished,  through  the  conclusions  arrived 
at  by  historical  criticism.  The  faith  of  Abraham — his 
implicit  trust,  that  is,  in  God's  leading — the  integrity  and 
steadfast  continence  of  Joseph,  must  still  remain  for  our 
example  and  instruction,  whether  all  that  is  related  of 
these  characters  be  of  the  nature  of  veritable  history,  or 
be  largely  the  ideal  creation  of  a  later  age. 

That  which  is  really  important  is  that  the  narrator  has 
handed  down  a  conception  of  man's  relationship  to  God 
which  commends  itself  to  the  human  conscience  in  all  time, 


THE  MORAL  SPHERE  175 

and  lays  the  basis  for  moral  and  spiritual  progress.  He 
is  a  prophet,  inasmuch  as  his  mission  is  to  convey  to  the 
world  the  mind  and  purpose  of  God  with  regard  to  man. 
Whether  in  developing  his  theme  he  confines  himself  to 
the  facts  of  history  or  draws  to  some  extent  upon  his 
imagination  is  a  question  of  subordinate  importance,  in- 
teresting the  historian  rather  than  the  religious  thinker. 

At  this  point  we  may  touch  upon  the  vexed  question 
of  the  miraculous  in  the  Old  Testament  narratives. 
Following  out  the  same  line  of  thought,  it  may  be  main- 
tained that  the  evidence  for  the  moral  fact  is  different 
in  character  from,  and  quite  unaffected  by,  the  evidence 
for  the  physical  miracle.  The  evidence  for  the  former 
is  the  relationship  which  it  bears  to  the  history  of 
Revelation  as  a  whole,  and  the  appeal  which  it  makes 
to  the  conscience  of  to-day ;  the  evidence  for  the  latter 
has  of  necessity  been  weakened  by  the  extension  of  our 
knowledge  as  to  the  sphere  of  uniformity  in  nature.  Yet 
no  aspersion  is  cast  upon  the  writer,  because  that  which 
was  credible  to  him  upon  slight  evidence  may  appear 
incredible  to  us.  He  was  inspired  to  act  as  a  teacher 
of  religious  truth,  not  of  natural  science.  And  thus,  while 
we  differ  from  him  in  so  far  as  we  believe  that  purely 
natural  causes  may  have  brought  about  the  overthrow 
of  Pharaoh's  army  in  the  Red  Sea,  yet  we  can  see  that 
God  used  these  forces  to  effect  His  purpose,  and  we  assent 
to  the  conclusion  that  He  fought  for  Israel. 

It  cannot,  however,  be  overlooked,  upon  any  theory  of 
inspiration,  that  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
relative  and  often  defective  in  character.  Our  Lord 
Himself  sets  His  seal  to  this  fact,  when  He  claims  to 
supersede  the  enactments  of  the  Old  Covenant :  "  Ye 
have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said  by  them  of  old  time 
.  .  .  but  I  say  unto  you.  .  .  ."  The  moral  standard  of 
Jehovah's   religion,  infinitely  higher  as   it  was  than   the 


176    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

religious  standards  of  surrounding  nations,  was  yet  only 
such  as  could  be  grasped  by  a  more  or  less  primitive 
civilisation,  delivered  and  received  "by  divers  portions 
and  in  divers  manners."  The  morality  of  the  legal  enact- 
ment which,  in  the  name  of  Moses,  set  the  divine  sanction 
to  a  man's  giving  his  wife  a  bill  of  divorcement  and 
putting  her  away,  differs  toto  ccbIo  from  the  morality  of 
Hosea,  refusing,  in  spite  of  all,  to  cast  off  the  wretched, 
sin-stained  Gomer,  and  tenderly  y#t  firmly  enunciating 
the  true  character  of  the  marriage-bond,  binding  alike  on 
him  and  her :  "  Thou  shalt  abide  for  me  many  days ;  thou 
shalt  not  play  the  harlot,  and  thou  shalt  not  be  any  man's 
wife :  so  will  I  also  be  toward  thee "  (Hos.  iii.  3).  It  is 
this  latter  conception,  and  not  the  former,  which  furnishes 
a  type  of  Jehovah's  relationship  to  His  people,  wherein 
Love  joins  hands  with  Righteousness. 

Or,  again,  it  need  not  be  perplexing  if  Jehu's  blood- 
thirsty extermination  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  keenly 
commended  by  the  writer  of  Kings  as  though  well- 
pleasing  to  Jehovah  (2  Kings  x.  30),  should  be  utterly 
reprobated  by  Hosea :  "  I  will  avenge  the  blood  of  Jezreel 
upon  the  house  of  Jehu,  and  will  cause  the  kingdom  of 
the  house  of  Israel  to  cease"  (Hos.  i.  4).^  The  two 
apostles  were  not  arguing  upon  a  false  analogy  when 
they  cited  the  example  of  Elijah  as  a  precedent  for  the 
calling  down  of  fire  upon  the  Samaritan  village ;  but  they 
failed  to  grasp  the  fact  that  in  this  instance  the  morality 

1  It  may  be  noticed  that  in  both  these  iUustrations  the  higher  example 
of  morality  happens  to  be  earlier  in  date  than  the  lower.  Hosea  {circ. 
B.C.  750)  is  earlier  than  the  law  of  divorce  as  formulated  in  Deuteronomy 
xxiv.  I  fF.  (B.C.  621  ;  though  the  law  itself  is  probably  much  older) ;  and  the 
same  prophet  is  also  prior  to  the  first  editor  of  Kings  {circ.  B.C.  600). 
Instances  of  progressive  morality  might  be  selected.  Cf.  the  development 
of  the  theory  of  individual  responsibility  as  seen  in  the  dicta  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  as  contrasted  with  the  older  proverbial  saying,  **  The  fathers 
have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge "  (Jer.  xxxi. 
29,  30  ;  Ezek.  xviii.  ;  cf.  Deut.  xxiv.  16 ;  2  Kings  xiv.  5,  6). 


LIMITATIONS   OF  O.T.   MORALITY       177 

of  Elijah  was  the  morality  of  a  bygone  age,  and  so  they 
called  forth  a  rebuke  (St.  Luke  ix.  51  ff.). 

It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  must  regard  the 
morality  of  actions  which  are  favourably  presented  by  the 
Old  Testament  writers,  as  though  in  accordance  with 
the  Divine  will,  but  which  are  apt  to  trouble  the  con- 
science of  the  reader  who  imagines  that  they  have  to 
be  justified  in  accordance  with  the  Christian  standard. 
Abraham's  signal  act  of  obedience  and  of  trust  in  God's 
promise  (Heb.  xi.  17  ff.)  is  bound  up  with  the  terrible 
conception  that  human  sacrifice  is  acceptable  as  a  costly 
gift  to  God.  Israel's  wars  of  extermination  are  regarded 
as  Jehovah's  retribution  on  the  wicked,  and  test  obedience 
to  His  commands,  but  only  as  these  commands  could  be 
conceived  by  a  semi-barbarous  race.  The  terrible  curses 
of  the  "imprecatory  psalms"  may  serve  to  exhibit  the 
eternal  antipathy  between  righteousness  and  iniquity; 
but  as  the  expression  of  a  spirit  of  vengeance  on  the 
part  of  individuals  they  are  flaws  upon  the  morality  of 
their  authors,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  "  the  mind  of 
Christ." 

So  far,  then,  we  may  maintain  that  the  spiritual  and 
moral  value  of  the  Old  Testament  stands  quite  unaffected 
by  our  advance  in  knowledge  as  to  the  composition  and 
authorship  of  the  various  books. 

But  it  may  justly  be  remarked  that  the  critical  study  of 
the  Old  Testament  has  brought  with  it  but  small  gain  to 
religion,  if  all  that  can  be  said  is  that  to  a  great  extent 
criticism  has  left  the  religious  value  of  the  Old  Testament 
untouched,  and  as  it  was  in  former  times.  What  would 
seem  to  be  the  ideal,  above  and  beyond  this,  is  that  the 
attainments  of  scientific  criticism  should  be  found  to  sub- 
stantiate the  truth  of  our  faith,  albeit  not  perhaps  in  a 
manner  strictly  in  accordance  with  preconceived  traditional 


178    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

ideas,  becoming  a  powerful  argument,  of  real  value  in  ap- 
proving the  Divine  origin  of  the  Christian  creed. 

It  is  not,  the  writer  believes,  too  bold  an  assertion  to  say 
that  this  is  being  accomplished.  The  main  purpose  of 
this  essay  is  to  attempt  to  trace  out  some  of  the  lines 
along  which  criticism  seems  already  to  have  brought  forth 
fruit,  and  to  have  prepared  the  ground  for  a  yet  more 
abundant  harvest. 

First  of  all,  we  have  to  notice  the  constructiveness  of 
Old  Testament  criticism. 

An  objection  often  brought  against  the  higher  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament,  by  those  who  have  an  imperfect 
appreciation  of  its  methods  and  results,  is  that  it  is  purely 
negative  in  character.  This  is  by  no  means  the  case. 
Necessarily,  at  its  commencement,  and  in  making  its 
attack  upon  the  outworn  theories  of  tradition,  the  negative 
side  of  any  scientific  criticism  must  first  come  into  promi- 
nence. But  as  it  advances,  if  it  is  true  to  its  principles 
as  a  means  for  the  seeking  of  the  truth,  this  negative  stage 
is  passed,  and  science  exhibits  its  constructive  side. 

Such,  it  may  fairly  be  claimed,  has  come  to  be  the 
case  with  Old  Testament  criticism.  It  presents  us  with 
a  theory  of  the  growth  of  the  Old  Testament  literature 
and  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  religion, 
based  upon  a  minute  examination  of  the  sources  and  a 
scientific  employment  of  the  means  of  inquiry  which 
lie  at  the  disposal  of  students  at  the  present  day. 
It  represents  the  outcome  of  an  attempt  to  bring  the 
Old  Testament  history  of  the  religion  of  Israel  into  line 
with  other  fields  of  learning  in  which  knowledge  has 
advanced  through  application  of  the  comparative  method. 
It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  what  a  wonderful 
impetus  the  study  of  origins,  in  all  its  many  branches,  has 
received  during  the  last  fifty  years  through  the  labours  of 
Mr.  Darwin  in  the  field  of  biology.     Methods  which  he 


1 


METHOD  AND  RESULTS  OF  CRITICISM    179 

employed  so  successfully  in  his  investigation  of  the  origin 
of  species  have  since  been  utilised  in  many  other  fields, 
and  the  result  has  been  that  knowledge  in  these  various 
departments  has  advanced  by  leaps  and  bounds. 

Could  and  ought  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
have  remained  stationary  and  untouched  ?  No  one  would 
dispute  that  a  great  gain  to  our  knowledge  of  the  Old 
Testament  language  has  resulted  through  scientific  com- 
parison of  the  other  languages  of  the  Semitic  group. 
And  if  such  a  use  of  the  comparative  method  commends 
itself  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew  language,  may  not  the 
same  method  be  legitimately  employed  in  the  case  of  the 
Hebrew  literature  and  of  the  Hebrew  religion?  Rather, 
is  not  the  fearless  and  reverent  employment  of  such  a 
method  a  proof  to  the  world  that  Christian  scholars  are 
sure  that  the  Old  Testament  has  nothing  to  fear  through 
the  application  of  the  searching  rays  of  scientific  truth, 
but  can  only  gain  through  being  brought  into  line  with 
the  general  advance  in  knowledge  which  the  last  half- 
century  has  witnessed? 

Having  thus  spoken  of  the  method,  let  us  notice  the 
results. 

Broadly,  it  may  be  said  that  a  recognition  of  the  human 
element  in  the  Old  Testament  has  served  to  emphasise  and 
bring  home  to  us  the  reality  of  the  Divine  element  with  a 
force  which  otherwise  we  might  have  failed  to  appreciate. 
The  placing  of  documents  in  their  true  chronological 
position,  and  the  study  of  the  religious  ideas  which  they 
contain  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  times,  the 
endeavour  accurately  to  ascertain  \.\\q  first  meaning  which 
the  words  of  prophet  and  teacher  must  have  conveyed  to 
their  contemporaries,  all  this  has  led  us,  and  will  in  the 
future  further  lead  us,  to  see  that  there  is  in  the  religion 
of  the  Old  Testament  an  orderly  process  of  develop- 
ment, leading  up  to  the  full  manifestation  of  our  Lord. 


i8o    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

These  documents,  studied  after  the  manner  and  by  the 
methods  applied  to  any  other  literature,  have  proved  that 
they  possess  in  themselves  something  far  beyond  what 
any  other  literature  possesses ;  and,  in  spite  of  their 
fragmentariness,  are  seen  to  exhibit  a  unity  in  diversity 
which  cannot  be  ascribed  to  any  merely  human  agency. 

We  turn  to  an  examination  of  the  primitive  ideas  and 
customs  which  belonged  to  the  early  religion  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  we  find  that  they  exhibit  very  much  that 
is  common  to  other  Semitic  religions.  We  see  the  tribes 
of  Israel  settled  in  Canaan  in  the  midst  of  races  speaking 
practically  the  same  language  as  theirs,  with  at  most  mere 
dialectical  peculiarities,  using  the  same  titles  to  describe 
their  deities  as  Israel  used  in  speaking  of  Jehovah,  hold- 
ing the  same  ideas  with  regard  to  sacred  places  as  the 
scenes  of  Theophanies,  and  placing  their  sanctuaries  in 
the  same  way  at  these  sacred  places,  upon  hill-tops  and 
beside  springs  of  water  and  spreading  trees.^  We  take 
note  of  such  facts  as  these,  because  they  point  to  a  marked 
similarity  in  externals  between  the  religion  of  Israel  and 
the  religion  of  the  Canaanites ;  but  then  we  are  con- 
fronted by  the  question.  How  was  it  that  the  religion  of 
Israel,  in  face  of  such  outward  similarities,  escaped  assimi- 
lation to  the  impure  and  seductive  nature -worship  of 
Canaan  ?  One  answer  only  is  adequate  as  an  explanation. 
It  was  because  of  the  unique  inner  nature  of  the  Mosaic 
religion,  expressed  in  the  exclusive  claim  to  allegiance 
which  Jehovah  made  upon  His  worshippers.  And  the 
ground  upon  which  this  claim  was  based  was  the  character 
of  Jehovah  as  revealed  by  Moses  to  the  tribes  of  Israel ; 
Jehovah  was  a  moral  deity,  and  demanded  the  same  moral 
characteristics  in  His  worshippers?- 

1  Cf.  the  present  writer's  Outlines  of  Old  Testament  Theology,  chaps,  i.,  ii. 
The  subject  should  be  studied  in  detail  in  Robertson  Smith,  Religion  of 
the  Semites. 

2  Cf.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  Lect.  ii.;  Montefioke, 
Hibuert  Lectures,  pp.  46  f. 


CHARACTER   OF   HEBREW   RELIGION     i8i 

Can  we  fail  to  trace  in  this  the  working  of  the  divine 
purpose  of  God — that  which  St.  Paul  names  "  the  purpose 
of  God  according  to  selection"^ — separating  for  Himself 
one  particular  nation  to  be  the  instrument  for  the  re- 
ception and  development  of  those  truths  of  Revelation 
which  were  to  issue  finally  in  the  full  manifestation  of 
God  to  mankind  ? 

And  then,  in  reviewing  this  moral  character  of  Israel's 
God,  we  notice  that  it  contains  within  itself  the  possibility 
and  the  promise  of  a  progj'essive  Revelation,  a  Revelation 
by  which  man  can  be  lifted  up,  so  as  to  correspond  in 
some  degree  to  the  moral  nature  of  his  God,  and  to  go 
on  advancing  towards  a  goal.  That  is  to  say,  in  contrast 
to  the  religions  of  the  surrounding  nations,  the  foundation 
is  laid  for  continuous  progress ;  there  is  to  be  no  stunting, 
no  degeneracy. 

This  fact,  which  we  know  to  have  been  fulfilled  in 
history,  is  already  inherent  in  the  name  of  Israel's  God, 
as  revealed  to  Moses  at  Horeb.  The  name  Jehovah  seems 
to  mean  He  who  will  become^  and  that  passage  (Exod. 
iii.  13-15)  in  which  the  name  is  elucidated  by  the  state- 
ment, "  I  am  what  I  am,"  or  rather,  "  I  will  become  what 
I  will  become,"  implies  that  no  words  can  adequately  sum 
up  all  that  the  God  of  Israel  will  become  to  His  chosen 
people;^  that  He  will  go  on  making  revelation  of  Him- 
self "in  many  parts  and  in  many  manners,"  up  till  the 
fulness  of  time  when  He  is  revealed  in  His  Son,  the 
effulgence  of  His  glory  and  the  impress  of  His  substance. 

The  idea  that  Israel  can  correspond  to  the  character 
of  Jehovah  carries  with  it  the  conception  that  there  can 
be  formed  a  covenant  between  the  God  of  Israel  and 
His  people,  a  conception  which  is  constantly  emphasised 
throughout  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.     It  is  upon 

^  17  K(xr*  iKXoyrjv  irp6d€<Ti.s  tov  GeoD,  Romans  ix.  1 1  i 
^  Cf.  Driver  in  Siudt'a  Biblica^  i.  pp.  12  ff. 


i82     PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

the  basis  of  this  conception  that  the  prophets  found  their 
doctrine  of  the  Messianic  expectation,  with  all  that  is 
bound  up  with  it.  Let  us  consider  how  far  criticism  has 
affected  the  validity  of  this  cardinal  doctrine  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy. 

If  it  be  asserted  that  it  is  the  merit  of  critical  investiga- 
tion to  have  substantiated  the  fact  that  the  prophets  point 
forward  and  bear  witness  to  Christ,  the  assertion  is  likely 
to  be  met  with  the  rejoinder  that,  according  to  the  old 
traditional  method  of  study,  such  a  witness  was  regarded 
as  nearly  the  sole  end  and  purpose  of  their  prophecies. 
Still,  the  fact  can  scarcely  be  disputed  that  upon  the  old 
view  of  things  the  character  of  this  reference  was  much 
less  real.  It  was  uninvestigated,  unproven,  and  for  this 
very  reason  there  was  always  room  for  the  suspicion  that 
it  might  be  explained  away. 

Now,  when  investigation  has  been  made,  when  we 
understand  generally  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
prophecies  were  uttered,  and  their  primary  reference,  then 
it  seems  that  the  further  meaning  which,  as  in  the  face  of 
facts  we  are  bound  to  recognise,  these  prophets  were 
inspired  to  convey  must  come  home  to  us  as  an  absolutely 
unique  and  marvellous  phenomenon. 

Let  it  be  understood  that  when  the  writer  speaks  of 
Messianic  prophecy  the  term  is  not  meant  merely  to  cover 
the  fact  that  the  prophets,  by  the  general  drift  and  tenour 
of  their  teaching,  were  instrumental  in  shaping  that  de- 
velopment which  found  its  head  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ,  but  it  is  meant  that  there  are  passages  in  the 
prophets — not  isolated,  but  frequent  and  of  an  essential 
part  with  all  their  teaching — in  which  they  put  forward 
the  well-defined  ideal  of  a  Person  whose  advent  their 
future  is  to  witness ;  and  that  this  phenomenon  is 
explained  when  recognised  as  the  heralding  of  One  who 
is  the   Son   of  God,  the   Saviour  of  mankind,  and  the 


MESSIANIC   PROPHECY  183 

Inaugurator  of  a  new  era,  but  otherwise  would  be  wholly 
inexplicable. 

We  will  now  endeavour  to  mark  out  some  of  the  aspects 
from  which  a  study  of  Messianic  prophecy  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  critical  methods  seems  to  offer  very  valuable 
results. 

In  the  first  place,  the  employment  of  the  historical 
method  demands  that  particular  prophecies  should  be 
studied  primarily  in  relationship  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  times  at  which  they  were  produced.  That  is  to  say, 
it  is  before  everything  necessary  that  the  historical  back- 
ground of  a  prophecy  should,  as  far  as  is  possible,  be 
thoroughly  grasped,  in  order  that  the  meaning  which  the 
prophet  must  have  intended  by  his  words  to  convey  to  his 
contemporaries  may  be  rightly  understood.  It  seems  a 
truism  to  say  that  every  prophet  spoke  in  the  first  place 
to  meet  the  needs  of  his  own  time,  and  intended  that 
his  words  should  have  their  own  particular  immediate 
reference.  Yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  only  through  the 
application  of  the  historical  and  scientific  method  to  the 
works  of  the  prophets,  regarded  as  any  other  literature 
might  be  regarded,  that  this  first  principle  of  interpretation 
has  come  in  any  degree  to  be  utilised. 

And,  secondly,  for  the  right  understanding  of  prophecy 
— the  right  estimation  of  its  evidential  value  as  part  of  the 
argument  for  the  truth  of  the  Christian  Faith — it  is  neces- 
sary that  greater  stress  should  be  laid  upon  its  bearing  as  a 
wholcy  and  less  upon  the  evidence  of  particular  short  pas- 
sages regarded  in  isolation.  And  it  may  fairly  be  claimed 
that  such  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  bearing  of  prophecy 
has  only  become  possible  through  the  labours  of  historical 
criticism,  because  this  alone  may  be  said  to  have  in  some 
measure  produced  order  out  of  chaos,  and  to  have  enabled 
us — if  still  but  imperfectly — to  trace  the  gradual  de- 
velopment of  religious  ideas  in  ancient   Israel,  and  the 


i84    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

tendencies  which  down  the  ages  were  at  work  in  giving 
them  shape. 

Let  us  now  contrast  the  evidential  value  of  Messianic 
prophecy  as  studied  according  to  the  traditional  method 
with  its  value  as  studied  in  accordance  with  the  critical 
method.  Why  is  it  that  upon  traditional  lines  the 
evidence  of  Messianic  prophecy  does  not  occupy  a  more 
important  position  among  the  "proofs"  of  Christianity? 
Why  is  it  that,  of  those  who  adopt  or  acquiesce  in  the 
traditional  method  of  interpretation,  for  one  who  really 
feels  that  he  possesses  in  the  Old  Testament  a  powerful 
buttress  to  his  faith,  there  are  a  hundred  who  regard  it 
mainly  as  a  weak  point  which  has  continually  to  be 
irksomely  guarded,  lest  the  citadel  should  be  taken  by 
storm }  The  reason  seems  to  be  that,  upon  the  old 
lines,  the  mind  of  a  serious  student  of  prophecy  must 
necessarily  be  influenced,  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
by  a  want  of  cohesion  in  the  body  of  evidence,  and  by 
a  certain  artificiality  in  the  method  of  interpretation. 
Particular  prophecies  are  taken  in  isolation,  without 
reference  to  the  occasions  which  first  called  them  forth ; 
and  an  application  of  them  directly,  as  it  were,  to  the 
circumstances  of  our  Lord's  life  involves  a  straining  of 
subordinate  and  unessential  details  which  weakens  the 
total  effect  upon  the  mind. 

Turning  now  to  the  effect  produced  upon  the  mind 
by  study  of  the  same  Scriptures  upon  critical  lines,  the 
writer  can  speak  for  himself  and  affirm  that  the  evidence 
of  Messianic  prophecy  acts  upon  his  mind  with  a  peculiar 
cogency,  as  one  of  the  most  powerful  of  intellectual 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

Wherein  does  the  difference  lie?  Probably  it  lies 
mainly  in  the  fact  that  the  critical  student  discerns  with 
some  clearness  the  development  of  certain  tendencies 
out  of   small  beginnings.      Watching   their   growth,  he 


MESSIANIC   PROPHECY  185 

notices  how  again  and  again  the  events  of  history  were 
fitted  to  give  them  shape  in  what  (in  view  of  the  larger 
future)  he  feels  to  have  been  the  best  way ;  and,  as  they 
are  seen  to  flower  and  bear  their  fruit,  the  conviction 
seizes  him  .that  a  miracle  is  being  enacted  before  his 
eyes,  if  by  a  miracle  is  understood  something  quite 
unique  and  out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  a 
cogent  proof  of  the  working  of  the  Divine  hand  in 
shaping  the  affairs  of  this  world. 

Such  a  statement  as  to  the  wide  outlook  offered  to 
the  Old  Testament  student  through  the  medium  of  his- 
torical criticism  requires  illustration.  We  must  there- 
fore endeavour  to  indicate  in  a  few  words  the  main 
lines  upon  which  Messianic  prophecy  is  developed,  the 
tendencies  which  gave  it  shape,  and  the  manner  in  which 
Divine  guidance  so  ordered  it  that,  while  arising  out  of 
temporary  circumstances,  it  might  have  a  far  wider  and 
deeper  significance,  only  to  be  satisfied  in  the  Person 
and  work  of  our  Lord. 

The  main  idea  which  lies  behind  all  Old  Testament 
teaching  as  to  the  relationship  between  Israel  and 
Israel's  God  is  the  idea  of  the  Covenant.  Just  as  in  old 
times,  among  the  Semitic  races  of  which  Israel  formed 
one,  it  was  customary  that  the  covenant-contract  should 
form  the  basis  of  all  friendly  dealings  between  man  and 
man,  so  it  was  firmly  believed  that  between  Jehovah 
and  the  nation  of  Israel  such  a  contract  had  been 
concluded.^ 

That  Jehovah  should  choose  Israel  as  the  recipient  of 
this  bond  was  a  mark  of  supreme  privilege.  Israel  was 
the  chosen  nation,  above  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
Let  us  now  briefly  notice  the  manner  in  which  the  idea 
of  this  covenant-relationship  gives  shape  to  later  thought. 

Two  points  require  emphasis.     In  the  first  place  the 

^  Cf.  the  writer's  Outlines  of  Old  Testajneni  Theology^  chap.  iii. 


i86    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

covenant  is  regarded  as  concluded  by  Jehovah  with 
Israel  in  the  person  of  Israel's  righteous  ancestors.  In 
the  book  of  Genesis  it  will  be  found  related  that  God 
definitely  entered  into  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  that 
this  covenant  was  again  ratified  with  Abraham's  son 
Isaac,  and  yet  again  with  his  son's  son,  Jacob.  Here 
is  the  root  of  the  matter.  Israel's  ancestors,  as  such, 
are  representative  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  the 
covenant  thus  concluded  can  never  be  annulled.  In 
later  days  sin  may  enter  in  and  mar  the  relationship  in 
the  case  of  individuals,  and  apostasy  may  even  attain 
such  huge  dimensions  as  to  appear  all  but  universal. 
But  it  never  can  be  really  universal.  In  the  darkest 
times  Elijah  may  exclaim,  "  The  children  of  Israel 
have  forsaken  Thy  covenant,  thrown  down  Thine  altars, 
and  slain  Thy  prophets  with  the  sword ;  and  I,  even  I 
only,  am  left " ;  yet  Jehovah  knows  of  "  seven  thousand 
in  Israel,  all  the  knees  which  have  not  bowed  unto  Baal, 
and  every  mouth  which  hath  not  kissed  him."  And 
whenever  and  wherever  there  is  such  a  faithful  remnant, 
that  is  the  true  nation,  in  which  God's  covenant  with 
Abraham  remains  ratified.  Jehovah  acts  for  the  honour 
of  His  Name  —  for  His  oath's  sake,  in  guarding  the 
continuity  of  this  faithful  Israel.  In  Samuel's  noble 
words,  "The  Lord  will  not  forsake  His  people  for  His 
great  Name's  sake,  because  it  hath  pleased  the  Lord  to 
make  you  a  people  unto  Himself"  (i  Sam.  xii.  22). 

And,  secondly,  we  have  to  take  special  note  of 
Jehovah's  covenant  with  David. 

David  is  characterised  as  the  man  after  Jehovah's  own 
heart  (i  Sam.  xiii.  14),  not  because  his  character  is  by  any 
means  represented  as  flawless,  but  because,  in  spite  of  all 
his  shortcomings,  he  constantly  recognises  the  sacred  trust 
which  has  been  committed  to  him  as  king  over  Jehovah's 
heritage,   and    realises,   in    the    main,   that   condition    of 


I 


JEHOVAH'S  COVENANT  WITH  ISRAEL     187 

dependence  and  reliance  upon  the  Divine  Ruler  which 
should  be  characteristic  of  the  human  ruler  in  the  ideally 
constituted  theocratic  state.  Thus  it  is  promised  that 
David  is  always  to  have  a  "lamp"  before  Jehovah  in 
Jerusalem,  the  quenchless  flame  being  emblematic  of  a 
never-failing  posterity  to  sit  upon  his  throne. 

It  is  this  twofold  idea — the  doctrine  of  the  indestructi- 
bility of  Israel  as  a  nation  and  of  the  Davidic  dynasty — 
which  leavens  the  whole  of  prophetic  thought,  and  gives 
tone  and  colour  to  the  conception  of  a  future  Messianic 
Age  which  is  put  forward  with  so  much  prominence  in 
the  writings  of  the  prophets. 

Now  let  us  notice  a  few  of  the  salient  points  in  the 
picture  of  the  Messianic  Age  —  such  points  as,  when 
studied,  appear  irresistibly  to  convey  the  impression  that 
they  have  a  far  wider  scope  than  can  be  satisfied  by  the 
immediate  circumstances  of  the  times  which  gave  them 
birth. 

For  the  sake  of  simplicity  we  may  treat  the  subject 
under  two  heads — (i)  Tke  character  of  the  King-Messiah, 
and  (2)  the  nature  of  His  kingdom  and  age. 

(i)  The  figure  of  the  King-Messiah  is  earliest  pour- 
trayed  by  the  writing  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  B.C. 
The  portrait,  dimly  suggested  by  Hosea,  receives  a  more 
finished  study — bolder  outline  and  deeper  colours — at  the 
hands  of  Isaiah.  Micah,  a  younger  contemporary  of 
Isaiah,  seems  to  follow  in  his  footsteps  in  the  picture 
which  he  sketckes.  Later  prophets,  and  especially  Jere- 
miah, set  their  impress  to  the  work. 

As  to  the  King's  characteristics ;  He  is,  in  the  first  place, 
always  represented  as  of  the  house  of  David.  Sometimes, 
indeed,  allusion  is  made  to  Him  under  the  name  of  David. 
*•  Afterward  shall  the  children  of  Israel  return,  and  seek 
Jehovah  their  God,  and  David  their  king"  (Hos.  iii.  5; 


i88    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

cf.  Jer.  XXX.  8,  9).  His  birthplace  is  Bethlehem,  the  town 
of  David  (Micah  v.  2). 

And,  secondly — a  point  of  the  highest  importance — He 
is  pictured  as  the  true  embodiment  of  the  theocratic 
ideal.  Receiving  His  commission  and  the  power  to 
execute  it  directly  from  God  as  God's  vicegerent,  He  in 
a  very  real  sense  represents  God  to  man.  This  may  be 
seen  in  His  symbolic  names.  Isaiah  calls  Him  Immanuel, 
i.e.  "God  is  with  us"  (Isa.  vii.  i-ix.  7);  for  Jeremiah  He 
is  Jehovah  qidqcnu,  "  Jehovah  is  our  righteousness "  (Jer. 
xxiii.  5-8  ;  xxxiii.  14-26).  And  these  names  indicate,  not 
merely  that  the  King  is  to  be  ^o.  pledge  of  God's  Presence 
among  men,  but  also,  in  a  true  sense,  the  embodiment 
of  that  Presence.  He  is  invested  with  attributes  which 
are,  in  fact,  divine.  Immanuel  is  named  "God — mighty 
one"  (Isa.  ix.  6) — a  title  which  is  elsewhere  applied  by 
Isaiah  to  Jehovah  Himself  (x.  21).  For  Jeremiah,  too,  the 
Messiah  is  the  embodiment  of  Jehovah's  covenant — a  new 
covenant  written  not  upon  tables  of  stone,  but  placed 
within  the  inward  parts,  engraved  upon  the  heart  (Jer. 
xxxi.  31  ff.). 

Here  is  a  conception  which,  it  must  be  admitted,  was 
not  and  could  not  be  fulfilled  by  any  mere  earthly 
monarch,  but  which  was  in  the  fullest  sense  realised  in 
the  Person  of  our  Lord,  even  as  He  claimed. 

(2)  Next,  as  to  His  kingdom  and  age. 

Here,  as  is  natural  in  pictures  drawn  primarily  for  the 
times  which  gave  them  birth,  the  prophets'  horizon  is,  to 
some  extent,  limited  by  their  particular  temporal  circum- 
stances. 

The  nation  is  regarded  as  purified  through  judgment, 
and  in  general  the  Messianic  outlook  is  foreshortened ; 
the  future  age  is  pictured  as  immediately  succeeding  upon 
the  judgment  involved  through  the  prophet's  special 
circumstances,  the  immediate  sins  of  the  Israel  of  his  age. 


THE  KING-MESSIAH  AND  HIS  KINGDOM    189 

The  prophets  also  in  general  paint  a  picture  of  the 
future  age  in  which  temporal  physical  prosperity  has  its 
share.  The  foes  of  Israel,  as  representing  the  world-power 
in  opposition  to  Jehovah's  people,  are  vanquished  and 
broken ;  the  ideal  limits  of  the  kingdom,  as  it  was  in 
the  days  of  Solomon,  are  once  more  restored,  and  the 
land  yields  its  increase  with  exceptional  fertility. 

But  the  fact  cannot  fail  to  be  noticed  that  this  picture 
of  material  prosperity  always  tends,  like  a  dissolving  view, 
to  pass  over  into  another  picture  in  which  the  moral  and 
spiritual  basis  of  the  kingdom  forms  the  central  subject 
which  rivets  the  gaze.  "  This  is  the  covenant  which  I  will 
make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord ;  I  will  put  My  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  in 
their  heart  will  I  write  it ;  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  My  people :  and  they  shall  teach  no  more 
every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every  man  his  brother, 
saying.  Know  the  Lord  :  for  they  shall  all  know  Me,  from 
the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the 
Lord :  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity,  and  their  sin  will 
I  remember  no  more"  (Jer.  xxxi.  33,  34).  Here  we  have 
in  very  deed  the  picture  of  a  spiritual  kingdom,  a  kingdom 
"not  of  this  world." 

Or,  if  we  turn  to  consider  the  manner  in  which  the  King- 
Messiah  administers  the  affairs  of  His  realm,  we  read  that 
"  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  Him,  the  spirit  of 
knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord ;  and  His  delight 
shall  be  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord :  and  He  shall  not  judge 
after  the  sight  of  His  eyes  nor  reprove  after  the  hearing  of 
His  ears,  but  with  righteousness  shall  He  judge  the  poor 
and  reprove  with  equity  for  the  meek  of  the  earth;  and  He 
shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of  His  mouth,  and  with 
the  breath  of  His  lips  shall  He  slay  the  wicked.  And 
righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  His  loins,  and  faith- 
fulness  the    girdle    of    His   reins."     And    then,   after    a 


190    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

beautiful  sketch  of  the  universal  peace  which  shall  prevail, 
even  extending  its  influence  to  the  lower  animals,  the 
writer  continues,  "  They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in 
all  My  holy  mountain ;  for  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea" 
(Isa.  xi.  2-9).  Here,  if  we  mistake  not,  there  is  no  picture 
of  a  limited  Israelitish  kingdom,  a  mere  political  unit 
among  many  other  such;  it  is  a  kingdom  of  which  the 
basis  is  the  Religion  of  the  one  true  God,  and  of  which  the 
limits  are  coextensive  with  the  world. 

And  if  this  be  so,  what  of  the  foreign  nations  in  their 
relationship  to  Israel?  We  need  only  to  turn  to  that 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  from  which  quotation  has  just  been 
made:  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day  that  the 
root  of  Jesse  {i,e,  the  King-Messiah)  which  standeth  for  an 
ensign  of  the  peoples,  unto  Him  shall  the  nations  seek ; 
and  His  resting-place  shall  be  glorious"  (7a  10).  The 
nations  are  to  be  united  to  Israel,  not  by  compulsion,  but 
through  community  in  the  highest  of  interests.  This  is  a 
conception  which  is  worked  out  elsewhere  in  a  variety  of 
ways,  and  which,  in  fact,  goes  back  as  far  as  the  record  of 
Jehovah's  promise  to  Abraham,  reiterated  to  Isaac  and  to 
Jacob,  "  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."! 

These  few  illustrations  have  been  chosen  out  of  very 
many  which  might  have  been  collected  to  prove  that  the 
writings  of  the  prophets,  taken  as  a  whole,  and  with  a  due 
regard  to  their  immediate  temporal  reference,  point  for- 
ward in  a  truly  wonderful  way  to  a  supernatural  King- 
Messiah  ruling  over  a  spiritually  constituted  kingdom — 

1  Genesis  xii.  3,  xviii.  18,  xxviii.  14.  In  the  two  passages,  Genesis  xxii. 
18,  xxvi.  4,  we  must  render,  **  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  bless 
themselves,^'  i.e.  when  they  wish  to  invoke  a  special  benediction  they  will 
formulate  it  as  a  desire  to  partake  of  the  privileges  of  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
This  reflexive  sense  is  possible,  though  not  necessary,  in  the  three  passages 
given  above,  in  which  the  passive  meaning  is  adopted.  Upon  either  rendering 
the  general  bearing  of  the  passages  is  the  same. 


THE  SERVANT  OF  JEHOVAH  191 

a  conception  which  is  only  satisfied  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  God-man,  and  the  divine  society  which  He 
came  to  found. 

But  as  yet  we  have  not  touched  upon  the  conception  of 
the  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah  and  his  mission,  which 
occurs  so  frequently  in  the  exilic  section  of  the  book  of 
Isaiah,  chaps,  xl.-lv.,  chap.  Ixi.  i,  ff.  This  conception 
occupies  a  position  of  so  striking  an  importance  as  to 
demand  some  detailed  consideration  in  a  sketch  of  the 
evidence  of  Messianic  prophecy  as  weighed  from  the 
critical  standpoint. 

The  title  "  Servant "  of  Jehovah,  as  used  in  Isaiah  xl.-lv., 
is  not  altogether  a  new  one.  It  is  applied  to  many  of  the 
great  figures  of  Israel's  history  who  are  pictured  as  living 
in  an  intimate  relationship  to  Jehovah — Abraham,  Moses, 
Joshua,  David,  Isaiah,  and  others.  Especially  is  application 
of  the  title  made  to  the  prophets  as  a  body,  as  entrusted 
by  Jehovah  with  a  special  mission.  And  not  only  in  the 
bare  use  of  the  title  may  anticipations  be  traced  in  Israel's 
earlier  history,  but  also  in  the  conception  therein  involved 
— in  the  idea  that  a  man  may  commit  himself  to  God  in 
trustful  service,  may  lean  implicitly  upon  God's  guidance, 
may  feel  that  he  is  an  instrument  in  God's  hands  for  the 
working  out  of  His  good  pleasure  in  the  world.  This 
appears  very  prominently  throughout  the  narrative  of  the 
life  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  typical  Israelite,  the  Ideal 
of  the  nation.  Or,  again,  Jeremiah  may  be  selected  as  a 
typical  illustration  of  the  conception  in  the  case  of  the 
individual,  realising  as  he  does  in  a  high  degree  the  con- 
dition of  uttermost  surrender  to,  and  dependence  upon, 
Jehovah  : — "  Thy  words  were  found,  and  I  did  eat  them  ; 
and  Thy  words  were  unto  me  a  joy  and  the  rejoicing  of 
mine  heart :  for  I  am  called  by  Thy  Name,  O  Lord  God 
of  hosts"  (Jer.  xv.  16). 

Turning  now  to  Isaiah  xl.-lv.,  the  work,  be  it  remem- 


192    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

bered,  of  some  writer  during  the  Babylonian  exile,  let  us 
inquire  what  may  have  been  the  immediate  reference  of 
the  conception  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah. 

We  have  already  noticed  that  the  title  is  frequently 
employed  elsewhere  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  generally  ; 
but  as  the  prophets  have  been  singled  out  from  the  mass 
of  Israel  as  the  medium  of  God's  special  revelation,  so 
has  Israel  as  a  whole  been  singled  out  from  the  other 
nations  of  the  world.  Thus  in  "the  Song  of  Moses"  in 
Deuteronomy  we  find  the  title  "  His  servants "  applied 
generally,  from  this  point  of  view,  to  the  members  of  the 
chosen  nation  (Deut.  xxxii.  36,  43),  while  the  singular 
"  My  servant "  is  used  of  the  nation  as  a  whole  both  by 
Jeremiah  and  by  Ezekiel  (Jer.  xxx.  10 ;  xlvi.  27 ;  Ezek. 
xxviii.  25  ;  xxxvii.  25). 

In  the  same  way,  in  the  chapter  of  Isaiah  with  which 
we  are  dealing,  the  title  "My  servant"  is  several  times 
applied  to  the  nation  of  Israel  at  large,  as  chosen  by 
Jehovah.  The  fact,  however,  cannot  wholly  be  overlooked 
by  the  writer  that  the  bulk  of  the  nation  is  untrue  to 
its  vocation,  blind  and  deaf  to  God's  call :  "  Who  is  blind, 
but  My  servant  ?  or  deaf,  as  My  messenger  that  I  send  ? 
Who  is  blind  as  the  devoted  one,  and  blind  as  the  servant 
of  Jehovah?"  (xlii.  18,  19).  We  seem  to  find,  therefore,  a 
narrowed  use  of  the  term  to  denote  the  Israel  within 
Israel,  the  faithful  worshippers  of  God  upon  whom  the 
hope  of  the  nation  must  be  centred.  This  true  Israel  is 
idealised  by  the  prophet  as  an  individual — the  Servant  of 
Jehovah. 

This  is  not  the  place  in  which  to  enter  into  a  lengthy 
discussion  of  the  prophet's  conception.  Let  us  summarise. 
The  ideal  Servant  is  the  anointed  prophet  of  Jehovah 
(Ixi.  i).  He  is  the  representative  of  the  new  covenant 
between  Jehovah  and  His  people,  of  which  Jeremiah  had 
already  spoken    (xlii.  6).      It  is  his  mission  "to  preach 


THE   SERVANT   OF  JEHOVAH  193 

good  tidings  to  the  meek,  .  .  ,  to  bind  up  the  broken- 
hearted/' encouraging  the  depressed  exiles  by  the  promise 
of  forgiveness  and  near  approaching  release,  "  the  accept- 
able year  of  Jehovah"  (Ixi.  1-3  ;  cf.  xl.  i,  2).  Thus  he  is 
"  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  restore  the  pre- 
served of  Israel "  (xlix.  5,  6).  The  gentle  tenderness  with 
which  he  fulfils  his  charge  is  especially  noticeable.  As 
the  trained  disciple  of  Jehovah,  he  understands  how  "  to 
sustain  the  weary  with  a  word "  (1.  4) ;  "a  bruised  reed 
shall  he  not  break,  and  a  dimly  burning  wick  shall  he  not 
quench"  (xlii.  3). 

But  his  mission  is  not  confined  to  his  own  nation.  As 
it  opens  out  before  him,  he  realises  that  it  is  world-wide  in 
scope.  Jehovah's  promise  is,  "  I  will  give  thee  for  a  light 
to  the  Gentiles,  that  My  salvation  may  be  unto  the  ends 
of  the  earth "  (xlix.  6 ;  cf.  xlii.  6  b).  The  Servant  is  *'  to 
bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles,"  and  "  the  isles  shall 
wait  for  his  instruction  "  (xlii.  i,  4). 

Such  a  work,  however,  as  is  committed  to  him  can  only 
be  accomplished  through  much  suffering.  His  contem- 
poraries fail  to  understand  his  steadfast  purpose ;  he  is 
greeted,  not  with  enthusiasm,  but  with  scorn  and  loathing. 
None  like  him  has  ever  understood  what  sorrow  means. 
He  experiences  to  the  full  the  sharp  pain  of  isolation,  the 
agony  caused  by  misinterpretation  of  the  active  sympathy 
which  he  has  to  proffer  (liii.  3  ff ).  Yet,  in  spite  of  all,  he 
still  persists.  In  the  teeth  of  active  persecution  he  sets 
his  face  like  a  flint,  for  the  Lord  Jehovah  is  his  helper, 
and  he  knows  that  he  shall  not  be  put  to  shame  (1.  5-9). 
Finally,  in  the  pursuit  of  his  aims,  he  voluntarily  suffers  a 
cruel  death,  allowing  himself  to  be  numbered  with  trans- 
gressors, and  undergoing  the  death  and  burial  of  the 
worst  of  felons  (liii.  7-9V 

^  The  text  of  Isa.  liii.  9a  ought  probably  to  run :    "  And  they  made  his 
grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  violent  {or^  with  evil-doers)  his  sepulchral 
mound." 
O 


t94    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

But  it  is  through  death  that  the  purpose  of  his  life  is 
worked  out.  His  death  is  a  guilt-offering  (liii.  lo).  His 
sufferings  are  vicarious ;  Jehovah  has  been  pleased  to 
smite  him  in  order  that  his  blood  may  become  the  seed 
of  a  renewed  community.  Thus  he  is  pictured  as  rising 
again  from  the  dead.  "  He  shall  see  his  seed,  he  shall 
prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  Jehovah  shall 
prosper  in  his  hand."  He  gazes  with  satisfaction  upon  his 
labours,  knowing  that,  through  his  uttermost  self-surrender, 
God's  purpose  has  been  accomplished  to  the  full. 

Now,  as  regards  chapter  liii.,  we  have  to  inquire  who 
the  speakers  are  who  are  represented  as  narrating  the  facts 
of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Servant,  expressing  the 
while  their  amazement  as  the  meaning  of  it  all  dawns  upon 
their  senses.  Briefly,  they  seem  to  be — not  other  Israelites 
who  are  speaking  about  a  select  few  within  their  own 
nation,  but — the  heathen  nations  of  the  world  who  are 
speaking  about  the  nation  of  Israel,  regarded  for  the  time 
being  as  a  righteous  unit.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  not  a 
question  of  the  redemption  of  the  nation  of  Israel  by  its 
righteous  members,  but  of  the  redemption  of  the  world  at 
large  by  the  nation  of  Israel.  This  seems  to  be  clear,  if 
we  pay  regard  to  the  introductory  words  of  the  section, 
"  So  shall  he  (the  Servant)  startle  many  nations ;  kings 
shall  shut  their  mouths  at  him :  for  that  which  had  not 
been  told  them  shall  they  see ;  and  that  which  they  had 
not  heard  shall  they  understand"  (lii.  15).  And  then 
immediately  follows  the  description,  which  gives  voice 
to  the  astonishment  of  these  heathen  nations  and  their 
kings. 

Nor  need  we  be  surprised  if  the  Servant,  who  elsewhere 
seems  to  represent  a  righteous  nucleus  within  the  nation 
of  Israel,  should  here  come  to  answer  to  Israel  as  a  whole. 
The  measure  of  the  nation's  religion  is  found  in  its  faith- 
ful members,  be  they  many  or  few ;  they  represent  the 


THE   SERVANT  OF  JEHOVAH  195 

nation  charged  with  a  mission  to  the  world  at  large ;  and 
regarded  thus,  in  relation  to  the  other  nations  of  the  world, 
as  the  conservator  of  the  true  Religion,  Israel  as  a  whole 
is  the  righteous  nation,  and  may  be  ideally  invested  with 
the  attributes  of  Jehovah's  Servant. 
X  But  what  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Servant  ? 

We  have  this  conception,  applied  to  the  revivification  of 
the  nation  by  Hosea,  writing  long  years  before  the  Exile : 
"  After  two  days  will  He  revive  us :  on  the  third  day  He 
will  raise  us  up,  and  we  shall  live  before  Him"  (Hosea 
vi.  2).  And  again,  and  as  in  Isaiah  liii.  duri?ig  the  Exile, 
the  same  conception  is  worked  out  at  length  by  Ezekiel  in 
his  vision  of  the  valley  of  dry  bones  :  "  Son  of  man,  these 
bones  are  the  whole  house  of  Israel :  behold,  they  say. 
Our  bones  are  dried  up,  and  our  hope  is  lost :  we  are  clean 
cut  off.  Therefore  prophesy  and  say  unto  them.  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God :  Behold,  I  will  open  your  graves,  and 
will  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves,  O  my 
people ;  and  I  will  bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel.  And 
ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord,  when  I  have  opened 
your  graves,  and  caused  you  to  come  up  out  of  your 
graves,  O  my  people.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit  within 
you,  and  ye  shall  live,  and  I  will  place  you  in  your  own 
land :  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it, 
and  performed  it,  saith  the  Lord  "  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  11-14). 

The  Servant  of  Jehovah,  therefore,  as  he  figures  in 
Isaiah  liii.  represents  in  the  first  place  Israel  as  a  nation, 
passing  through  the  sufferings  and  vicissitudes  of  the  Exile, 
and,  as  it  were,  emerging  from  the  tomb  at  the  restoration 
from  captivity  in  order  to  be  the  instrument  for  the  re- 
demption of  the  world. 

And  when  did  the  prophet  imagine  that  his  prediction 
was  to  be  realised  ?  Did  he  take  a  foreshortened  view  of 
the  future,  and  imagine  a  new  era  about  to  dawn  upon  the 
world  immediately  upon  the  nation's  return  from  Exile? 


196    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

And  if  so,  and  having  regard  to  the  day  of  small  things 
which  succeeded,  aye,  and  lasted  for  five  centuries  after 
the  return,  must  we  say  that  his  prediction  was  a  failure  ? 
Surely  not.  It  was  as  the  seed  which  is  cast  into  the 
ground  and  seems  to  rot  and  perish,  but  which  in  its 
season  springs  again  and  bears  its  flower  and  fruit — a 
fulfilment  infinitely  more  glorious  than  the  promise  might 
have  seemed  to  warrant :  so  was  it  in  the  Incarnation  of 
our  Lord. 

Thus  we  are  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Personality  of  Christ  absorbs  these  scattered  rays  which 
gleam  across  the  pages  of  Israel's  histor)^  The  King- 
Messiah  and  His  kingdom,  the  righteous  Servant  and  his 
mission,  are  brought  together  and  realised  in  the  Person 
of  our  Lord.  We  find  in  the  Incarnation  the  answer  to 
these  spiritual  strivings  of  the  nation  which  among  all 
other  nations  reached  the  highest  level  of  moral  and 
theological  thought ;  and  in  the  fact  that  this  is  so  we 
possess  one  of  the  strongest  of  arguments  for  the  truth 
of  the  claims  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  the  writer  has  in  any 
degree  made  good  his  contention  that  it  is  owing  to  the 
labours  of  historical  criticism  that  we  are  able  to  adjust 
our  view  as  to  the  bearing  of  Hebrew  prophecy  as  a 
whole,  and  to  understand  the  tendencies  which  were  at 
work  in  giving  it  shape,  then  it  must  be  thankfully 
acknowledged  that  the  critical  study  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  resulted  in  a  gain  to  the  Faith,  and  we  are 
able  to  look  forward  with  confidence  to  that  which  the 
future  may  produce  in  the  same  field. 

At  this  point  the  writer  would  gladly  draw  to  a  close 
and  lay  aside  his  pen.  But  there  remains  a  question  too 
intimately  connected  with  his  subject  to  be  passed  by 
unnoticed.  The  fact  cannot  be  ignored  that  acceptance 
and  even  consideration  of  the  critical  position,  as  it  affects 


OUR   LORD'S   USE   OF   THE  O.T.  197 

the  date  and  authorship  of  various  portions  of  the  Old 
Testament  literature,  has  been  opposed  at  the  outset  by 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  our  Lord.  It  has  been  urged 
that,  by  acceptance  of  the  traditional  views  which  were 
current  in  His  time,  our  Lord  has  foreclosed  certain 
questions  of  historical  criticism  :  that,  for  example,  the 
fact  that  He  "quotes  Deuteronomy  as  a  work  of  the 
highest  authority  on  the  subject  of  man's  relations  and 
duties  to  God"^  forbids  the  theory  that  the  book  should 
be  assigned  to  any  age  or  authorship  but  those  of  Moses ; 
that  His  reference  to  the  author  of  Psalm  ex.  as  "  David  "^ 
establishes  the  fact  that  David  wrote  the  Psalm  ;  that  His 
reference  to  Jonah  as  a  type  of  Himself^  precludes  the 
view  that  the  book  of  Jonah  is,  in  the  main,  allegorical 
rather  than  historical. 

To  this  objection  it  may  be  replied,  in  the  first  place, 
that  our  Lord,  in  making  citation  from  the  Old  Testament, 
could  scarcely  have  done  otherwise  than  acquiesce  in  the 
current  views  of  his  time  upon  questions  which  fall  within 
the  domain  of  criticism.  He  regards  the  Old  Testament 
as  inspired  to  make  appeal  to  the  hearts  and  consciences 
of  men,  as  inspired  also  to  point  forward  to  Himself. 
Such  a  view  of  Old  Testament  inspiration  stands  quite 
unaffected  by  questions  which  can  be  raised  by  historical 
criticism.  The  summary  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  is 
to  love  God  with  all  the  heart  and  soul  and  mind  and 
strength,  and  one's  neighbour  as  one's  self,  whatever  view 
be  taken  of  the  letter  of  any  particular  ordinance ;  the 
tenour  of  prophecy  is  to  point  forward  to  Christ  and  His 
kingdom,  whatever  opinion  may  be  entertained  as  to  the 
precise  date  or  authorship  of  any  particular  prophecy. 

^  St.  Matthew  iv.  4 ;  Deuteronomy  viii.  3  ;  St.  Matthew  iv.  7  ;  Deuteronomy 
vi.  16;  St.  Matthew  iv.  10;  Deuteronomy  vi.  13  and  x.  20.  Cf.  Liddon, 
Bampton  Lectures ^  p.  477. 

2  St.  Mark  xii.  35-37. 

'  St.  Matthew  xii.  39-41  j  St.  Luke  xi.  29,  30,  32. 


198     PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

Accordingly  it  will  be  found  upon  consideration  that 
our  Lord  never  raises  questions  with  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament  which  in  any  way  bring  under  discussion  the 
critical  views  of  His  audience.  To  have  done  so  would 
have  had  the  effect  of  concentrating  attention  upon  the 
letter  rather  than  upon  the  spirit.  Thus,  if  before  citation 
from  Deuteronomy  He  had  thought  it  necessary  to  indicate 
that  the  book  in  its  present  form  was  not  the  work  of 
Moses,  but  of  a  much  later  age,  it  may  be  imagined  that 
such  a  storm  of  criticism  and  discussion  would  have  been 
raised  that  the  purpose  of  the  citation,  the  moral  or 
spiritual  truth  contained  in  it,  could  never  have  been 
reached.  Rather,  He  is  content  to  take  the  letter  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  interpreted  by  His  hearers  :  "  What 
is  written  in  the  Law  ?  How  readest  thou  ? "  ^  And 
His  rebuke  is  never  directed  against  a  lack  of  critical 
acumen,  but  against  failure  to  perceive  spiritual  facts 
which  lie  patent  upon  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  against  absence  of  the  will  to  make  application  of 
the  teaching  which  it  conveys. 

This  argument  as  to  our  Lord's  use  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment would  hold  good  even  upon  the  assumption  that 
our  Lord  as  man  was  the  possessor  of  all  knowledge,  that 
His  Divinity  so  illuminated  the  Humanity  as  to  cause 
His  human  mind  to  possess  an  infused  knowledge  which 
was  practically  omniscient.  But  such  an  assumption  is 
emphatically  contradicted  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  reality  of  our  Lord's  humanity  means 
that  His  human  mind  was  subject  to  the  limitations  of 
human  knowledge.  Thus  we  read  that  there  was  a 
development  of  mind,  as  of  body,  as  He  advanced 
from  childhood  to  manhood  :  "  Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  men."^     The 

1  St.  Luke  X.  26. 

"^  St.  Luke  ii.  52,  modelled  upon  the  statement  with  regard  to  Samuel 
(i  Sam.  ii.  26),  but  with  the  addition  ''in  wisdom  and  stature." 


OUR   LORD'S   USE   OF  THE   O.T.         199 

limitation  of  human  knowledge  is  expressed  in  His  own 
statement  with  reference  to  the  great  day  of  judgment : 
"Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the 
angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only  "  ;^ 
and  by  the  fact  that  He  asks  questions,  obviously  with  the 
purpose  of  eliciting  information,^  and  expresses  surprise 
at  facts  which  come  under  His  observation,  as  new  ex- 
periences to  His  mind.3 

The  truth  of  His  divinity,  implying  the  possession  of 
absolute  unlimited  knowledge,  must  not  blind  our  eyes  to 
this  proper  limitation  of  His  human  knowledge,  though 
our  mind  is  incapable  of  correlating  the  two  facts.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  there  is  the  same  difficulty  in 
correlating  His  omnipotence  as  God  with  the  human 
limitation  in  power  which  is  attested  by  His  use  of  prayer, 
which  implies  a  real  seeking  after  that  grace  and  power 
of  which  as  man  He  stood  in  need,  and  in  respect  of 
which  He  must  therefore  have  consented  to  undergo  the 
limitations  proper  to  humanity. 

Granting,  then,  the  reality  of  His  human  mind,  it  surely 
follows  that  His  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  must 
have  been  acquired  by  study,  after  the  manner  which  is 
proper  to  men.  Doubtless  His  acquaintance  with  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  formed  part  of  that  growth  in  wisdom 
which  is  attested  by  St.  Luke;  and  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  He  would  adopt  in  the  course  of  His  studies 
those  views  with  regard  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  the 
Scriptures  which  formed  the  currency  of  the  scholarship  of 
His  times.  It  belonged  indeed  to  His  unique  spiritual 
insight  that  He  was  able  to  grasp  and  to  draw  out  the 

^  St.  Mark  xiii.  32  ;  St.  Matthew  xxiv.  36.  The  words  ** neither  the  Son" 
are  absent  from  some  MSS.  in  St.  Matthew,  but  "  the  documentary  evidence  in 
their  favour  is  overwhelming  "  (Westcott  and  Hort). 

"^  St.  Mark  vi.  38,  viii.  5,  xi.  21 ;  St.  Luke  viii.  30 ;  St.  John  xi.  34. 

'  St.  Mark  vi.  6,  xi.  13,  iv.  40,  vii.  18,  viii.  21,  xiv.  37  ;  St.  Luke  ii.  49. 
Cf.  Gore,  B  amp  ton  Lectures^  pp.  147  ff, 


200    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

deeper  meaning  of  the  Scriptures;  but  this  spiritual  in- 
sight was  due  to  the  enlightenment  of  the  unction  of  the 
Spirit  acting  upon  His  perfect  human  mind,  and  cannot 
be  thought  to  have  belonged  to  the  omniscience  of  the 
Godhead  taking  the  place  of  His  proper  human  know- 
ledge. 

The  question  has  been  raised  whether  such  a  limitation 
in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord's  human  mind  as  is  here 
supposed  can  be  thought  to  affect  His  infallibility  as  a 
teacher  within  the  sphere  of  faith  and  morals.  A 
moment's  reflection  will  suffice  to  show  that  this  is  not 
the  case.  Our  Lord's  relationship  as  man  to  the  Father 
expressed  the  perfection  of  that  which  is  properly  denoted 
by  the  term  religion — ie.  it  was  the  perfection  of  the  bond 
of  union  between  a  human  soul  and  God,  realised  through 
perfect  submission  of  the  human  will  to  the  divine  will. 
Through  such  a  relationship  the  human  soul,  unclouded 
by  sin,  was  fully  illuminated  as  to  the  will  or  mind  of 
God,  thus  possessing  absolute  inerrancy  upon  all  that  con- 
cerns the  relationship  of  the  human  soul  to  God,  i.e.  upon 
all  questions  of  faith  and  morals.  That  it  is  in  this 
perfect  relationship  of  the  human  soul  to  God  that  our 
Lord's  infallibility  with  regard  to  faith  and  morals  is  in- 
herent is  attested  by  the  promise  that  the  realisation  of 
such  a  relationship  (effected  through  union  with  Himself) 
shall  carry  with  it  for  His  followers  participation  in 
inerrancy  within  the  same  sphere :  "  If  any  man  willeth 
to  do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it 
be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  Myself."^  But  such  an 
infallibility  as  belongs  to  the  perfection  of  the  religious 
bond  stands  quite  unconnected  with  omniscience  in  regard 
to  scientific  questions,  such  as  questions  of  the  historical 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament.  Our  Lord  never  promises 
His  followers  omniscience  in  such  scientific  matters  through 

1  St.  John  vii.  17. 


SPECIAL   CITATIONS   FROM   O.T.        201 

realisation  of  union  with  God  through  Him  ;  nor  does  it 
enter  into  the  scheme  of  His  revelation  to  claim  such 
omniscience  for  Himself  as  man. 

We  find,  then,  that  our  Lord,  in  His  references  to  the 
Old  Testament,  assumes  the  traditional  views  with  regard 
to  date  and  authorship.  This  is  the  case  in  His  quotation 
from  Psalm  ex.,  recorded  in  St.  Mark  xii.  35-37,  where  it 
is  true  that  in  a  sense  the  question  turns  upon  the  Davidic 
authorship:  "David  himself  calleth  Him  Lord  ;  and  whence 
is  He  his  Son?"  Now  in  Psalm  ex.  we  have  a  poem  which 
appears  clearly  to  be  not  the  composition  of  a  king,  but 
rather,  in  view  of  its  primary  reference,  a  composition 
framed  in  honour  of  the  reigning  king  of  David's  line, 
whom  the  writer  designates  as  "  my  lord,"  the  ordinary 
title  of  respect  applied  to  human  dignitaries.  It  cannot, 
however,  be  supposed  that  our  Lord  intended  to  settle  for 
all  time  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Psalm,  so 
as  to  render  de  fide  the  acceptance  of  the  traditional  view 
as  against  the  critical  view.  The  purpose  of  His  quota- 
tion is  "not  to  prove  or  disprove  anything,  to  affirm  or 
to  deny  anything,  but  simply  to  press  upon  the  Pharisees 
an  argument  which  their  habitual  assumptions  ought  to 
have  suggested  to  them :  to  confront  them  with  just  that 
question  which  they,  with  their  principles,  ought  to  have 
been  asking  themselves."^  While,  however,  it  is  true  that, 
upon  the  acceptance  of  the  critical  position,  the  argument 
in  its  narrower  reference  to  the  particular  passage  in  ques- 
tion could  not  to-day  be  employed,  yet  in  its  wider 
application  our  Lord  is  enunciating  a  truth  which  must 
tend  to  come  more  vividly  into  prominence  the  more 
closely  the  Old  Testament  is  studied  j^  viz.  that  the 
Messianic  Son  of  David  is  pictured  in  prophecy  in  such 

1  Gore,  Bampton  Lectures ^  p.  198.     Cf.  carefully  the  whole  discussion  of 
the  passage,  pp.  196  ff. 

^  Cf.  the  argument  of  this  essay,  pp.  182  ff. 


202    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

language  as  can  only  be  fulfilled  in  the  Person  of  One 
who  is  Divine  as  well  as  human. 

Nor,  again,  can  our  Lord's  reference  to  Jonah  as  a  type 
of  Himself  be  thought  to  set  seal  to  the  historical  truth 
of  the  story  of  Jonah,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  allegory 
is  an  unfitting  medium  for  the  conveyance  of  divine 
teaching.  If,  as  is  probable,  Jonah  represents  the  nation 
of  Israel  emerging  as  though  by  a  miracle  from  the  Exile 
in  order  to  carry  out  its  mission  to  the  world  at  large,i 
it  may  be  noticed  that  the  idea  of  the  restoration  from 
the  Exile  as  a  resurrection  is  elsewhere  current  in  the 
prophetic  writings,^  and  that  it  is  thus  highly  fitting  that 
the  allegory  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  nation 
should  be  also  the  allegory  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  the  nation's  true  Representative. 

The  statement  of  St.  Matthew  xii.  41,  St.  Luke  xi.  32 
appears,  it  is  true,  to  bring  into  consideration  a  question 
of  fact :  "  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  stand  up  in  the 
judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it: 
for  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah ;  and,  behold, 
a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here."  It  may  be  noticed  that 
this  passage  is  really  not  affected  by  the  critical  view 
of  the  book  of  Jonah,  because  the  probabilities  of  the 
case  are  in  favour  of  a  historical  basis  for  the  story, 
such  as  the  fact  of  the  mission  of  Jonah  to  Nineveh.^ 
But  the  principle  which  we  are  endeavouring  to  illustrate 
has  its  application  here  as  elsewhere.  The  import  of  our 
Lord's  statement  does  not  turn  upon  the  historical  truth 
of  the  repentance  of  the  men  of  Nineveh.  They  are  but 
an  illustration  of  the  fact  that  men  in  bygone  times  have 
turned  from  sin  to  God  at  the  preaching  of  those  who 

^  Cf.  Hunter,  After  the  Exile,  vol.  ii.  chap,  iii.,  or  the  present  writer's 
Outlines  of  Old  Testament  Theology ^  pp.  Ii6  f. 

2  Cf.  p.  19s  of  the  present  essay. 

'  The  fact  that  the  prophet  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai,  was  a  historical 
person  may  be  inferred  from  the  allusion  in  2  Kings  xiv.  25. 


SPECIAL   CITATIONS   FROM   O.T.        203 

were  merely  God's  messengers,  and  thus  they  serve  to 
pass  condemnation  upon  those  who  were  deliberately 
hardening  their  hearts  against  the  conviction  which 
should  have  been  borne  in  upon  them  by  the  preaching 
and  personality  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  case  of  Deuteronomy,  however,  it  has  been  urged 
that  if  the  book  is  "in  point  of  fact  nothing  better  than 
a  pious  forgery  of  the  age  of  Jeremiah,"  its  use  by  our 
Lord  "involves  an  unfavourable  judgment,  not  merely  of 
His  intellectual  claims,  but  of  the  penetration  and  delicacy 
of  His  moral  sense" ;  because  His  moral  perceptions  were 
"  not  sufficiently  fine  to  miss  the  consistency,  the  ring  of 
truth,  in  a  document  which  professed  to  have  come  from 
the  great  Law-giver  with  a  Divine  authority;  while, 
according  to  modern  writers,  it  was  only  the  '  pious ' 
fiction  of  a  later  age,  and  its  falsehood  had  only  not 
been  admitted  by  its  author  lest  its  'effect'  should  be 
counteracted."  ^ 

This  argument  involves  a  misapprehension.  The  modern 
critical  theory  does  not  regard  Deuteronomy  as  a  "pious 
forgery  "  or  "  fiction."  The  writer  makes  use  of  an  older 
legislation,  and  reformulates  it  in  accordance  with  the 
needs  of  his  times.  The  antiquity  of  the  great  bulk  of 
the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  can  be  proved ;  ^  while  "  such 
laws  as  are  really  new  are  but  the  logical  and  consistent 
development  of  Mosaic  principles." 

If  the  author  adopts  the  dramatic  method  and  allows 
Moses  to  expound  the  spirit  of  this  legislation,  of  which 
he  is  the  source,  and  to  bring  out  its  application  to  the 
religious  needs  of  the  age,  there  is  no  shade  of  dishonesty 

^  LiDDON,  Bampton  Lectures^  pp.  477  f. 

*  Many  of  the  laws  find  their  parallel  in  the  ancient  ' '  Book  of  the 
Covenant"  (Exod.  xx.  23-xxiii.  33),  whilst  others  can  be  paralleled  in 
"the  Law  of  Holiness"  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  26),  the  presumption  in  this  latter 
case  being  that  both  codes  have  drawn  independently  from  a  common  older 
source.  Cf.  Driver  on  Deuteronomy^  Introduction^  §  2,  where  a  synopsis 
of  the  laws  is  exhibited. 


204    PERMANENT  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  OF  O.T. 

in  his  intention,  nor  is  his  work  to  be  stigmatised  as  a 
"  forgery."  1  And  certainly  his  moral  earnestness,  and  "  the 
ring  of  truth  "  in  his  words,  cannot  fail  to  strike  the  reader, 
whatever  view  be  taken  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  book  was  produced. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  our  Lord's  use  of  the  Old 
Testament  sets  no  barrier  to  the  free  employment  of  the 
methods  of  historical  criticism  by  the  biblical  student  of 
to-day.  Rather,  His  emphasis  on  the  spirit  as  distinct 
from  the  letter  of  Scripture,  and  the  characteristics  of  His 
own  teaching — the  going  back  to  the  fountain-head  of  the 
writings  themselves,  and  the  speaking  with  the  authority 

^  Dr.  Driver's  statement  of  the  manner  in  which  all  Hebrew  legislation  was 
regarded  as  Mosaic  is  singularly  illuminative: — "All  Hebrew  legislation, 
both  civil  and  ceremonial,  was  (as  a  fact)  derived  ultimately  from  Moses, 
though  a  comparison  of  the  different  codes  in  the  Pentateuch  shows  that  the 
laws  cannot  all  in  their  present  form  be  Mosaic ;  the  Mosaic  nucleus  was 
expanded  and  developed  in  various  directions,  as  national  life  became  more 
complex  and  religious  ideas  matured.  Nevertheless,  all  Hebrew  laws  are 
formulated  under  Moses'  name — a  fact  which  shows  that  there  was  a  con- 
tinuous Mosaic  tradition^  embracing  a  moral,  a  ceremonial,  and  a  civil 
element.  The  new  laws,  or  extensions  of  old  laws,  which  as  time  went  on 
were  seen  to  be  desirable,  were  accommodated  to  this  tradition,  and  incor- 
porated into  it,  being  afterwards  enforced  by  the  priestly  or  civil  authority, 
as  the  case  might  be.  Those  who  concede  the  existence  of  such  a  practice  on 
the  part  of  Hebrew  legislators  will  find  it  removes  difficulties  which  the 
critical  view  of  Deuteronomy  may  otherwise  present.  If  it  was  the  habit 
thus  to  identify  the  stream  with  the  source  and  to  connect  old  laws,  ex- 
tended or  modified,  or  even  new  laws,  with  the  name  of  the  original  law-giver, 
then  the  attribution  of  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  to  Moses  ceases  to  be  a 
proceeding  out  of  harmony  with  the  ideas  and  practice  of  the  Hebrew  nation. 
It  is  no  fraudulent  invocation  of  the  legislator's  name :  it  is  simply  another 
application  of  an  established  custom."  Cf.  also,  on  the  dramatic  method  of 
the  writer  of  Deuteronomy  : — "No  elaborate  literary  machinery  was  needed 
by  him  :  a  single  character  would  suffice.  He  places  Moses  on  the  stage,  and 
exhibits  him  pleading  his  case  with  the  degenerate  Israel  of  Josiah's  day.  In 
doing  this,  he  assumes  no  unjustifiable  liberty,  and  makes  no  unfair  use  of 
Moses'  name  ;  he  does  not  invest  him  with  a  fictitious  character  ;  he  does  not 
claim  his  authority  for  ends  which  he  would  have  disavowed  ;  he  merely 
develops,  with  great  moral  energy  and  rhetorical  power,  and  in  a  form 
adapted  to  the  age  in  which  he  lived  himself,  pririciples  which  Moses  had 
beyond  all  question  advocated,  and  arguments  which  he  would  have  cordially 
accepted  as  his  own."  Commentary  on  Deuteronomy^  pp.  Ivi.  f ,  Iviil  f.  The 
whole  section  on  the  date  of  the  book  should  be  carefully  consulted. 


CONCLUSION  205 

derived  from  personal  investigation,  untrammelled  by  the 
traditional  methods  of  the  scribes — mark  out  the  pathway 
which  the  Old  Testament  student  must  endeavour  in  all 
humility  to  follow.  And  it  is  still  possible  for  the  student 
to  gain  inspiration  from  the  belief  that  this  pathway  may 
be  the  road  which  leads  him  to  Emmaus,  and  that  the 
risen  Lord  may  be  his  companion,  enlightening  his  mind 
where  it  is  dull  and  slow  to  understand,  and  interpreting 
to  him  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself 


MODERN   CRITICISM   AND  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 


By  W.  C.  ALLEN 


Page 


A.  Summary  of  the  results  of  criticism — The  first  three  gospels — The 

Acts  of  the  Apostles — St.  Paul's  Epistles — The  Johannine 
writings — The  Catholic  Epistles  .  ...     208 

B.  Whatever  its  bearing  upon  the  value  of  the  New  Testament,  the 

application  of  historical  criticism  is  (a)  necessary,  {d)  primitive, 

(c)  apologetic  ,  .  .  ...     227 

C.  The  permanent  value  of  the  New  Testament — (a)  Its  historical  value 

as  a  source  of  knowledge ;  (b)  its  dogmatic  value  as  a  test  of  error  ; 
(c)  its  religious  value  as  an  inspired  record  of  a  part  of  the  Divine 
revelation — This  claim  to  inspiration  is  approved  by  the  human 
conscience — Difficulty  of  defining  *  Revelation '  and  '  Inspiration.' 
They  cannot  be  proved  or  disproved  any  more  than  the  existence 
of  God  can  be  proved  or  disproved  .  ...     234  • 

Inspiration  not  confined  to  the  Bible,  but  found  there  to  an  extent  in 
which  it  is  present  in  no  other  literature.  The  term  therefore 
conveniently  limited  to  the  Bible.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  con- 
ception of  revelation  follows  naturally  upon  a  consciousness  of  the 
Divine  Being  as  experienced  in  the  individual  life,  in  nature,  and 
in  history      .  .  .  .  ...     238 

In   the  New  Testament  the  question  of  revelation  depends  largely 

upon  the  attitude  taken  to  the  reality  of  the  Incarnation       .         .     239 

If  this  be  accepted,  it  becomes  natural  to  speak  of  the  books  which 

contain  the  earliest  historical  records  of  it  as  inspired  .        .     240 

THE  two  words  "biblical  criticism  "  suggest  to  different 
classes  of  people  very  different  trains  of  ideas.  To 
some,  chiefly  to  those  whose  knowledge  of  critics  and 
criticism   is   drawn   only  from    apologetic   writings,   they 

206 


VARIOUS   ASPECTS   OF  CRITICISM      207 

carry  with  them  a  dark  and  sinister  meaning.^  To  such 
persons  biblical  critics  are  relentless  foes  of  Christianity, 
who  spend  their  lives  in  fruitless  efforts  to  undermine  the 
foundations  of  the  Christian  faith.  Their  endeavours  are 
indeed  futile,  because  the  ecclesiastical  traditions  against 
which  they  direct  their  attacks  are  an  integral  part  of  the 
Christian  revelation,  and  therefore  cannot  be  permanently 
shaken.  But  in  the  meantime  faith  is  distressed,  devotion 
harassed,  and  the  members  of  Christ's  Church  needlessly 
frightened. 

To  others,  again,  the  words  suggest  freedom  and  liberty. 
Freedom  from  outworn  creeds,  liberty  from  antiquated 
and  exploded  beliefs.  To  these,  biblical  critics  are  the 
pioneers  of  scientific  progress,  who  are  doing  much  to 
free  the  mind  of  man  from  the  shackles  of  an  obsolete 
dogmatism.  Their  work  is  indeed  not  yet  complete, 
because  erroneous  beliefs  die  hard,  and  views  about  the 
Bible  which  have  ceased  to  be  scientifically  tenable,  still 
darken  the  atmosphere  of  men's  lives.^  But  in  the  mean- 
time the  foundations  of  the  temple  of  liberty  have  been 
laid,  and  though  the  building  be  incomplete,  men  are 
everywhere  pressing  into  it. 

To  yet  a  third  class  literary  criticism  of  the  Bible 
presents  itself  neither  as  the  foe  of  Christianity  nor  as 
its  conqueror,  but  rather  as  its  ally.  It  comes  to  them 
in  the  guise  not  of  a  dreaded  enemy,  much  less  of  a 
victorious  enemy,  but  rather  as  a  long-desired  and  gladly 
welcomed  friend.     To  such,  belief  in  the  inspiration  of 

^  To  a  writer  in  the  Guardian  (January  i6th,  1901,  p.  95)  the  presence  of 
modern  criticism  in  the  Church  is  "an  abiding  menace,"  and  Bishop  Gore 
speaks  of  the  suspicion  amongst  the  more  intellectual  laity  that  "  criticism  has 
proved  fatal  to  orthodoxy." — The  Pilots  iv.  75. 

2  "The  time  has  come  when  as  a  supernatural  revelation  they  (the  Hebrew 
Books)  should  be  frankly  though  reverently  laid  aside,  and  no  more  allowed 
to  cloud  the  vision  of  free  inquiry,  or  to  cast  the  shadow  of  primaeval  religion 
and  law  over  our  modern  life."— Goldwin  Smith,  Guesses  at  ike  Riddle  of 
Existence^  94. 


2o8      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

the  Bible,  so  far  from  being  shaken  by  a  century  of 
criticism,  has  been  greatly  strengthened  by  it.  They 
believe  in  the  Bible  not  in  spite  of  criticism,  but  because 
of  it ;  not  under  protest  against  it,  but  by  reason  of  it ; 
not  although  criticism  has  shown  that  certain  views  of 
inspiration  are  untenable,  but  just  because  this  has  been 
the  case. 

It  has  been  the  writer's  happy  and  delightful  lot  to  be 
obliged  to  spend  some  years  in  the  critical  study  of  the 
New  Testament.  In  the  following  pages  he  proposes  to 
summarise  the  results  of  the  literary  criticism  of  the  past 
century,  and  then  to  urge  that  such  results,  so  far  from 
being  destructive  of  a  belief  in  the  permanent  religious 
value  of  the  New  Testament,  are  the  soil  in  which  it 
finds  nourishment  and  strength. 

^.—SUMMARY  OF  THE  RESULTS  OF  CRITICISM  I 
THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS 
(a)  T/ietr  Composition, — The  view  current  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church  since  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  is 
that  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke  wrote  inde- 
pendently the  Gospels  called  by  their  names.^  This  view 
still  has  its  adherents,  but  they  diminish  in  numbers  daily. 
And  indeed  the  theory  is  beset  with  difficulties  which 
cannot  be  explained  away. 

It  has  become  clear  to  most  students  that  the  literary 
connection  between  these  Gospels  is  so  close  that  we  must 
fall  back  upon  some  theory  of  mutual  dependence  of  one 
writer  upon  another.  The  form  in  which  this  theory  has 
won  wide  approval  maintains  the  priority  of  St.  Mark, 
and  the  use  of  his  work  by  the  writers  of  the  first  and 
third  Gospels.  From  this  point  of  view  it  might  be  said 
that  the  authors  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  have  re- 

^  Iren^us,  Adv.  Hcer.,  iii.  i  ;  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Eus.,  H.  E.,  iii.  24; 
Tert.,  Adv.  Marty  iv.  5,  Muratorian  Canon. 


THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS  209 

edited  and  enlarged  St.  Mark.  But  there  is  a  second  link 
of  connection  between  them.  A  careful  examination  of 
the  sayings  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  in 
common  reveals  the  fact  that  many  of  them  must  be 
drawn  from  a  common  written  source,  used  by  them  side 
by  side  with  St.  Mark.  In  other  words,  the  authors  of 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  have  re-edited  St.  Mark,  using 
his  narrative  as  the  framework  of  their  history,  and  work- 
ing into  it  sayings  drawn  from  their  second  source.  This 
account  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospels,  generally 
called  the  Two  Document  Theory,  is  so  widely  represented 
in  England,  in  Germany,  and  in  America,  that  it  may  be 
said  to  hold  the  field.^  The  great  majority  of  recent 
writers  adopt  it.  Unfortunately  it  does  not  completely 
account  for  the  many  complex  features  presented  by  the 
Gospels.  Consequently  almost  every  writer  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  make  additions  to  it,  in  order  to  account  for  some 
of  the  unsolved  problems  of  the  literary  features  of  these 
writings.  Many  scholars  believe  that  St.  Luke  borrowed 
not  only  from  the  two  sources  used  also  by  St.  Matthew  but 
also  from  another  documentary  source,  which  he  often  pre- 
ferred to  those  which  he  had  in  common  with  St.  Matthew. 
One  distinguished  German  writer 2  believes  that  the  volume 
of  Sayings  used  afterwards  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke 
had  already  been  used  and  sometimes  altered  by  St.  Mark, 
and  that  the  two  later  evangelists  sometimes  revert  to  the 
original  source  in  preference  to  St.  Mark.  This  would 
explain  their  agreement  in  cases  where  they  differ  from 
St.  Mark.  Others  again  believe  that  St.  Luke  had  seen 
and  to  some  extent  used  St.  Matthew.^     But,  apart  from 

^  In  England,  Sanday,  Plummer,  Bruce,  Hawkins,  Burkitt,  Moffatt ;  in 
Germany,  Weiss,  Holtzmann,  Wendt,  Jiilicher,  Wernle,  Soltau,  and  many 
others;  in  America,  Gould,  McGiffert,  Bacon;  in  Holland,  Baljon. 

2  Weiss,  Introduction,  ii.  219  ff.     Lond.,  1888. 

^  Simons,  Hat  der  dritte  Evan^^elist  den  Kanonischen  Matthiius  benutzt? 
and  recently  in  a  modified  form,  Zimmermann,  Stud,  und  Krit,,  1901,  iii. 
435. 

P 


210      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

these  amplifications  of  the  main  theory,  it  may  be  said 
that  it  is  widely  regarded  as  an  established  result  that  the 
writers  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels  have  made  use  of 
two  main  sources,  one  being  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  the  other 
a  collection  of  sayings  of  Christ. 

(b)  Authorship  and  Date, — Upon  these  points  the  criti- 
cism of  the  last  two  decades  has  been  steadily  tending  in  a 
conservative  direction.  The  great  majority  of  writers  are 
agreed  that  our  first  three  Gospels  must  fall  within  the 
first  century.  The  few  who  think  that  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  may  be  later  would  not  venture  to  carry  them 
many  years  later  than  lOO  A.D.  On  the  whole  there  is 
very  good  reason  for  supposing  that  they  were  all  written 
before  rather  than  after  this  date.^ 

As  regards  authorship,  the  objections  which  are  raised 
in  some  quarters  to  the  traditional  view  that  the  second 
Gospel  is  the  work  of  John  Mark  are  very  inconclu- 
sive. Those  to  the  Lucan  authorship  of  the  third  Gospel 
are  possibly  deserving  of  a  little  more  consideration, 
while  the  difficulties  felt  with  regard  to  the  authorship  of 
the  first  Gospel  are  much  more  serious.  In  its  present 
form  this  last  cannot  be  apostolic.  It  is  a  composite 
work  based  upon  written  sources.  But  it  is  just  in  its 
connection  with  these  sources  that  the  tradition  that 
St.  Matthew  wrote  it  finds  its  explanation.  This  tradition 
is  in  all  probability  founded  upon  a  statement  made  by 
Papias,  who  was  Bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century.  His  statement  is  quoted  by  the 
Church  historian,  Eusebius,^  and  is  to  the  effect  that 
"Matthew  composed  the  Logia  in  Hebrew  and  everyone 
interpreted  them  as  he  could."  Now  it  is  clear  that  this 
statement  cannot  apply  to  our  Gospel  as  it  now  exists. 
It  is  not  written  in  Hebrew,  nor  is  it  a  translation  of  a 

^  See  the  conspectus  of  dates  in  Moffatt,  Historical  New  Testament,  273. 
2  Eus.,  H.  E.^m.  39. 


ST.  MARK  211 

Hebrew  work.  And  the  term  Logia,  i.e.  Oracles^  or 
Sayings,  would  be  a  very  unsuitable  word  to  describe  so 
carefully  articulated  a  theological  treatise  in  narrative  form 
as  our  Gospel.  But  the  volume  of  Sayings  used  by  the 
writer  of  St.  Matthew  may  well  have  been  a  translation 
of  St.  Matthew's  Hebrew  Logia,  and>  if  so,  the  name  of 
the  Apostle  might  not  unnaturally  be  transferred  from 
the  original  work  to  the  Gospel  in  which  so  much  of 
that  work  lies  embedded. 

(c)  Their  historical  value. — It  is  perhaps  hardly  necessary 
to  emphasise  the  principle  that  the  historical  value  of  the 
Gospels  must  depend  upon  the  character  of  the  sources 
used  by  them,  upon  the  circumstances  of  their  composition, 
and  upon  their  date.  In  all  three  respects  a  favourable 
verdict  must  be  passed  upon  the  first  three  Gospels. 

ST.  MARK 

(a)  Sources. — Of  sources  of  St.  Mark  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  speak.  Attempts  to  find  traces  of  written 
sources  in  his  Gospel  have  not  yet  won  any  general 
assent.^  The  Church  in  the  second  century  believed  that 
his  Gospel  contained  reminiscences  of  the  preaching  of 
St.  Peter,  and  there  is  very  little  to  be  set  against  this 
tradition.2    But  in  any  case  the  admittedly  early  date  of  the 

^  The  attempt  of  B.  Weiss  to  prore  that  Mark  used  the  Logia  has  been 
referred  to  above.  The  view  that  in  chapter  xiii.  a  Jewish  Christian  writing  of 
an  apocalyptic  character  has  been  combined  with  sayings  of  Christ  has  found 
wider  recognition.  Cf.  Menzies,  The  Earliest  Gospel,  p.  232 ;  Moffatt, 
Historical  New  Testament,  p.  637,  and  the  references  there  given. 

2  The  tradition  occurs  first  in  Papias,  quoted  in  Eus.,  H.  E.,  iii.  39. 
"And  this  the  elder  said.  Mark  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter 
wrote  down  accurately,  but  not  in  order,  whatever  he  remembered  of  the 
things  said  or  done  by  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord,  nor  followed 
him,  but  at  a  later  time  [followed]  Peter,  who  used  to  adapt  his  teachings  to 
the  necessities  [of  circumstances],  but  not  as  making  a  connected  narrative 
of  the  Lord's  words.  So  that  Mark  made  no  mistake  in  having  written  what 
he  remembered.  For  he  gave  heed  to  one  thing,  not  to  omit  anything  that 
he  had  heard,  nor  to  make  any  false  statement."  This  tradition  is  repeated 
by  the  Church  writers  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  e.g.  Iren^eus  ^Adv, 


212      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

Gospel  and  the  character  of  its  contents  stamp  it  as  of 
first-rate  importance,  for  it  shows  clearly  its  dependence 
upon  Church  tradition  in  its  fragmentariness,  its  incomplete- 
ness, the  absence  from  it  of  any  special  pleading.  The 
writer  plainly  has  no  other  purpose  than  that  of  putting 
into  permanent  form  such  incidents  of  Christ's  life  as  were 
well  known  amongst  those  for  whom  he  wrote.  He  is  no 
historian  or  biographer  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  words. 
Rather  he  is  sketching  the  main  facts  which  underlay  the 
faith  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  which 
justified  their  faith  in  Him.  His  writing  everywhere  pre- 
supposes the  Church  and  its  tradition.  Behind  the  outline 
of  facts  recorded  rises  the  picture  of  the  Christian  Society, 
its  faith,  its  institutions,  its  worship,  its  ordinances.  If 
this  be  kept  in  mind  the  literary  features  of  the  Gospel 
become  everywhere  intelligible,  but  if  this  be  forgotten 
the  book  becomes  a  literary  riddle. 

(b)  Date. — This  dependence  of  the  second  Gospel  upon 
Christian  tradition  becomes  emphasised  in  importance  when 
consideration  is  taken  of  its  early  date.  With  practical 
unanimity  critical  writers  place  it  between  the  years  65  A.D. 
and  80  A.D,  Most  scholars  would  prefer  a  date  before  rather 
than  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  That  is  to  say,  the  Gospel 
was  probably  written  within  forty  years  of  the  death 
of  Christ  and  in  the  lifetime  of  some  who  had  lived  in 
His  companionship.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  difficult 
to  suppose  that  the  facts  here  related  about  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  which  come  to  us  on  the  authority  of  no  single 
writer,  but  as  the  expression  of  the  common  belief  of  the 
Christian  Society,  are  not  in  the  main  accurately  recorded. 
At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  relation  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  Church,  whilst  it  is  on  the  one  hand 

Har.^  iii.  i,  i),  who  supposed  Mark's  work  to  have  been  composed  after  the 
death  of  St.  Peter,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  quoted  in  Eus.,  H.  E.  vi.,  14, 
who,  on  the  contrary,  believed  that  it  was  written  at  Rome  during  St.  Peter's 
lifetime. 


ST.  MARK  213 

a  guarantee  of  the  general  truthfulness  of  the  facts  re- 
corded, is  from  another  point  of  view  a  reminder  that 
these  facts  must  almost  inevitably  have  been  coloured  by 
the  Church's  belief.  The  impression  made  by  the  life  of 
Jesus  Christ  upon  His  disciples,  and  upon  the  members 
of  the  Christian  Churches,  was  so  great,  the  conviction  of 
His  supernatural  character  so  startling,  that  any  attempt 
to  describe  what  He  said  and  what  He  did  during  His 
earthly  life,  could  not  but  be  influenced  by  convictions 
which  gathered  round  His  person,  when  it  was  possible 
to  reflect  upon  His  life  as  a  whole.  It  is  impossible 
within  the  limits  of  this  essay  to  attempt  to  estimate  the 
extent  to  which  the  facts  of  Christ's  life  have  been  thus 
affected.  In  this  Gospel  such  modification  has  probably 
been  very  small.  There  were  men  still  living  when  the 
book  was  written  whose  presence  in  the  Church  would 
prove  invaluable  as  a  corrective  of  mistaken  modification 
of  the  actual  facts.  But  whatever  may  be  the  extent  to 
which  it  has  been  carried,  the  existence  of  such  modifica- 
tion is  in  itself  an  invaluable  proof  of  the  conviction  of 
Christ's  superhuman  nature  left  upon  the  minds  of  the 
disciples  as  the  result  of  His  life.  How  far  were  they 
right  in  their  conviction?  D9  the  facts  of  the  life  of 
Christ  necessarily  lead  to  so  far-reaching  an  explanation 
of  them?  Historical  evidence  is  powerless  to  answer 
such  questions  as  these.  In  other  words,  no  amount  of 
external  witness  is  sufficient  to  prove  or  to  disprove  them. 
Of  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  well  aware 
when  he  represented  the  Lord  as  appealing  in  proof  of 
His  divine  nature,  not  only  to  the  witness  of  the  Baptist,^ 
of  the  Old  Testament,^  and  of  His  own  works,^  but  also 
to  the  witness  of  God  the  Father,*  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.^ 

The  case  is  somewhat  different  with  regard  to  the  first 
1  V.  33.         2  y^  29.         =*  V.  36.         4  V.  37.         »  XV.  26. 


214      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

and  third  Gospels.  Here  criticism  has  been  successful  in 
distinguishing  between  the  Gospels  in  their  present  form 
and  the  sources  upon  which  they  are  based. 

ST.  MATTHEW 

(a)  Sources, — The  first  Gospel  is  largely  based  upon 
St.  Mark.  With  some  few  exceptions  and  with  some 
changes  of  order,  which  can  be  accounted  for  without 
difficulty,  the  editor  has  inserted  into  his  Gospel  the  whole 
of  St.  Mark's  writing.  But  he  is  no  mere  copyist.  Through- 
out the  whole  of  these  Marcan  sections  as  they  reappear 
in  the  first  Gospel  runs  a  series  of  minute  alterations — 
alterations  in  style,  alterations  in  phraseology,  alterations 
in  fact,  omissions,  additions.  These  changes,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  bear  the  stamp  of  literary  improvements 
rather  than  that  of  changes  made  on  the  ground  of  better 
information.  They  belong  to  that  class  of  variation  which 
is  always  found  in  the  later  of  two  accounts  of  the  same 
event,  when  the  second  writer  has  no  more  authentic 
information  than  his  predecessor.  In  some  cases  they  are 
due  to  a  desire  to  soften  passages  in  St.  Mark  at  which 
offence  had  been  taken.  In  others  they  are  due  to  the 
literary  scheme  of  the  first  Gospel,  changes  inevitably 
forcing  their  way  into  the  narrative  when  an  incident  was 
removed  from  its  original  setting  in  St.  Mark  to  suit  the 
plan  upon  which  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  built  up  his 
work.  In  all  cases  where  matter  is  common  to  both 
Gospels  St.  Mark  must  be  regarded  as  not  only  earlier 
in  point  of  time,  but  also  as  more  accurate  in  point 
of  detail,  and  St.  Matthew  not  only  as  secondary  in 
respect  of  dependence,  but  also  as  inferior  in  respect 
of  the  faithful  transmission  of  historical  fact. 

But  besides  the  material  borrowed  from  St.  Mark,  the 
first  Gospel  contains  a  considerable  amount  of  additional 
matter,  for  much  of  which  modern  criticism  finds  a  source 


ST.  MATTHEW  215 

in  the  Matthaean  Logia.  The  task  of  disentangling  these 
apostolic  fragments  is  a  difficult  one,  but  when  it  has  been 
achieved  we  are  in  possession  of  a  source  for  Christ's 
teaching  which  is  of  priceless  value.  It  seems  probable 
that  the  larger  number  of  the  sayings  in  the  first  Gospel, 
excluding  those  borrowed  from  St.  Mark,  were  drawn  from 
the  Logia;  they  come,  that  is  to  say,  from  an  apostolic 
collection  of  Christ's  sayings,  which  can  hardly  have  been 
composed  later  than  the  year  70  A.D.,  and  which  in  all 
probability  is  very  much  earlier.  No  doubt  they  have 
been  modified  in  transmission.  They  had  to  undergo  the 
process  of  translation  from  Aramaic  into  Greek  before 
they  came  into  the  hands  of  the  editor  of  the  first  Gospel. 
And  when  they  reached  him  it  seems  to  have  been  in  the 
form  of  detached  sayings,  often  without  historical  setting. 
This  explains  {a)  why  the  editor  of  the  first  Gospel  has 
interpolated  into  speeches  in  St.  Mark  sayings  which  are 
of  the  same  character  as  the  surrounding  verses  in 
St.  Mark,  but  which  cannot  have  been  spoken  on  the 
particular  occasion  which  St.  Mark  is  describing;^  {b)  why 
he  has  massed  together  these  sayings  into  great  groups  of 
discourse  \^  (c)  why  a  saying  which  in  St.  Matthew  occurs 
in  one  connection  is  sometimes  found  in  a  different  con- 
nection in  St.  Luke,  and  not  infrequently  is  used  to 
illustrate  different  lessons  in  the  two  Gospels.^  The 
Lord's  sayings  in  the  earliest  sources  seem  to  have  been 
preserved  either  in  the  form  of  a  parable  or  in  connection 
with  a   miracle,  or  as   short  detached   oracles.     In   our 

^  Cf.  Mark  vi.  8-1 1  with  Matthew  x.  5-42.  Some  of  the  verses  in  Matthew 
cannot  have  been  spoken  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  e.g.  verses  17-23  were 
no  doubt  spoken  on  some  other  occasion  with  reference  to  the  apostolic 
preaching  after  Christ's  death. 

2  Cf.  especially  chapters  v.-vii.,  x.,  xiii.,  xviii.,  xxiv.-xxv.  In  large  measure 
these  are  compilations  of  shorter  groups  of  sayings. 

'  e.g.  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Matthew  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (vi.  9-13), 
in  Luke  in  another  connection  (xi.  1-4).  The  sayings  in  Matthew  v.  25,  26 
teach  the  necessity  of  reconciliation  to  one's  fellow-men  ;  but  in  Luke  xii.  58-9 
the  same  sayings  command  a  speedy  reconciliation  to  God. 


2i6      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

Canonical  Gospels  they  have  been  combined  and  woven 
together  into  discourses,  sometimes  of  considerable  length. 
The  process  can  be  watched  by  comparing  St.  Mark  with 
the  later  Gospels.  But  even  in  St.  Mark  this  process  of 
combination  has  been  at  work.  There  are  indications, 
e.g.^  that  the  sayings  in  iv.  2-32  were  not,  as  it  would 
appear  to  a  careless  reader,  all  spoken  on  the  same  day, 
and  the  section  chapter  ix.  35-50  is  no  doubt  composite. 

After  removing  from  the  first  Gospel  the  matter  found 
also  in  St.  Mark  and  the  sayings  drawn  from  the  Logia, 
there  remain  the  narratives  of  the  Infancy  and  some 
incidents  and  sayings  scattered  over  the  Gospel,  the  most 
important  being  the  account  of  the  appearance  of  Christ 
after  His  resurrection  and  the  details  concerning  it. 

We  may  regard  all  these  narratives  as  due  to  the  editor 
of  the  Gospel,  in  so  far  as  it  cannot  be  proved  that  he 
borrowed  them  from  any  known  historical  source.  The 
question  therefore  arises.  Do  the  circumstances  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Gospel  predispose  us  to  take  a  favourable 
view  of  the  historical  character  of  these  narratives  for  which 
no  earlier  source  can  be  found  ?  This  is  a  difficult  question 
to  answer.  On  the  one  hand  it  may  be  urged  that,  like 
St.  Mark,  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  is  plainly  giving 
expression  to  the  general  tradition  of  the  Church  of  his 
own  day.  That  is  true;  but  on  the  other  hand  the  first 
Gospel  represents  this  tradition  at  a  later  stage  of  develop- 
ment than  does  the  second.  And  it  is  quite  clear  that  as 
the  years  passed  there  was  a  tendency  to  modify  the  tradi- 
tions with  regard  to  the  Lord's  sayings  and  actions.  This 
is  illustrated  in  the  change  which  has  passed  over  St.  Mark's 
narrative  when  it  reappears  in  St.  Matthew.  The  later 
writer  omits  clauses  which  might  seem  to  attribute  failure 
or  lack  of  power  to  Christ.^     He  omits  also  phrases  de- 

*  Cf.  Matthew's  omission  of  Mark  i.  45  (Jesus  could  no  more  openly  enter 
into  a  city),  vi.  48  (and  lie  would  have  passed  by  them),  vii.  24  (lie  could  not 


p 


ST.   MATTHEW  217 

scriptive  of  Christ's  human  emotions.  ^  And  lastly  he 
omits  the  questions  which  St.  Mark  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Christ  in  all  cases  where  such  questions  might  seem  to 
imply  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  Lord.^ 

Again,  it  might  be  urged  in  favour  of  some  of  the  inci- 
dents found  only  in  St.  Matthew  that  their  nature  suffi- 
ciently explains  the  fact  that  they  do  not  occur  in  the 
earliest  sources.  The  narratives  of  the  Infancy,  e.g,^ 
owing  to  their  nature,  would  be  withheld  from  publicity 
until  special  circumstances  called  for  their  disclosure.^  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  not  difficult  to  raise  objections  to 
such  an  explanation.  The  historical  character  of  these 
narratives  would,  we  cannot  but  feel,  be  less  open  to  ques- 
tion if  some  trace  of  knowledge  of  the  facts  which  they 
present  could  be  found  in  St.  Paul  or  in  the  earlier  Gospel 
sources,  e.g.  St.  Mark.  Moreover,  in  view  of  the  tendency 
to  modify  tradition,  which  has  been  referred  to,  it  is  easy 
to  suggest  tendencies  which  may  have  assisted  such  modifi- 
cation in  these  particular  narratives.  In  general  there 
would  be  the  tendency  to  minimise  the  purely  human 
element  in  Christ's  person,  and  to  exaggerate  the  Divine — 
to  represent  his  whole  life  less  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that 
He  was  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  more  in  the  light  of 
St.  Paul's  presentation  of  Him  as  the  pre-existent  Son 
of  God.  In  particular  there  would  be  the  almost  inevitable 
wish  to  represent  the  entry  into  the  sphere  of  human  things 

be  hid),  ix.  30  (He  would  not  that  any  should  know  it),  xi.  13  (if  haply  He 
might  find ;  it  was  not  the  season  of  figs) ;  and  cf.  Mark  vi.  5  (He  could  do 
there  no  mighty  work)  with  Matthew  xiii.  58  (He  did  not  do  many  mighty 
works),  and  Mark  xiv.  58  (I  will  destroy)  with  Matthew  xxvi.  61  (I  can 
destroy). 

^  Cf.  Matthew's  omission  of  Mark  iii.  5  (with  anger,  being  grieved),  vi.  6 
(He  marvelled),  i.  43  (i/x^pi/i7](rdfji€vos),  viii.  12  (sighed  deeply),  x.  14  (was 
moved  with  indignation),  x.  21  (loved). 

2  Cf.  Matthew's  omission  of  Mark  v.  9,  30;  vi.  38;  ix.  12  (how  has  it 
been  written),  16,  21,  33 ;  xiv.  14.  Cf.  also  viii.  12,  19,  20  ;  x.  3,  with 
parallels  in  Matthew. 

^  See  Gore,  Dissertations,  12-40. 


2i8      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

of  One  so  exalted  as  unique,  and  the  ready  vehicle  for  the 
satisfaction  of  this  desire  in  that  idea  of  miraculous  birth 
which  has  fascinated  the  minds  of  men  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  from  the  earliest  times.  Again  there  would  be  the 
tendency  to  find  in  the  life  of  Christ  exact  fulfilment  of 
prominent  Old  Testament  prophecies.  It  may  be  true 
that  in  Isaiah  vii.  14  the  word  translated  virgin  had  not 
given  rise  to  the  expectation  of  a  Messiah  born  of  a  virgin, 
but  that  is  no  reason  at  all  why  the  Christian  Church  at 
the  end  of  the  century  should  not  have  felt  that  it  would 
be  fitting  if  the  ^  irapQivo^  of  the  Greek  Old  Testament 
had  found  its  literal  fulfilment  in  the  mother  of  the  Lord. 
There  are  signs  elsewhere  in  the  first  Gospel  that  in  the 
atmosphere  of  Christian  thought  which  it  represents  this 
desire  to  find  exact  fulfilment  of  prophecy  sometimes  exer- 
cised a  modifying  influence  upon  the  accounts  of  incidents 
in  Christ's  life.  Considerations  such  as  these  have  led  a 
certain  number  of  modern  critical  writers  to  regard  the 
narratives  with  which  we  are  dealing  as  the  creation  of 
the  Church's  reflective  consciousness,  and  the  product 
of  her  adoration  of  Christ.  It  seems  to  the  present  writer 
that  the  time  is  not  yet  fully  come  for  passing  any  definite 
judgment  in  the  matter.  This  much  is  clear,  that  those 
narratives  in  St.  Matthew  which  are  not  drawn  from 
St.  Mark,  and  which  cannot  be  assigned  to  the  Logia, 
do  not  stand  upon  the  same  level  of  historical  value  as 
the  second  Gospel  and  the  Logia  sections  in  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke.  There  are  two  plain  reasons  for  this  state- 
ment. In  the  first  place  these  narratives,  if  not  later  in 
substance  than  St.  Mark  and  the  Logia,  appear  for  the 
first  time  in  later  Gospels  ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  Matthew 
narratives  at  least  the  writer  who  records  them  can  be 
proved  to  show  a  tendency  to  modify  any  earlier  sources 
which  he  has  used.  But  if  this  be  admitted,  the  further 
question  whether  the  incidents  recorded  were  or  were  not 


ST.   LUKE  219 

substantially  true  in  point  of  fact,  in  spite  of  the  lateness 
of  their  attestation,  still  remains  open.  It  may  be  urged 
that  a  comparison  with  St.  Mark  leads  to  a  very  favourable 
view  of  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  as  an  editor  who,  in 
broad  outline,  faithfully  reproduced  his  sources ;  that  the 
incidents  recorded  in  these  narratives  must  have  been  a 
commonplace  of  the  Church  tradition  which  he  represents ; 
and  that  that  tradition,  with  all  due  allowance  for  some 
amount  of  working  up  in  literary  form  and  setting,  must 
be  regarded  as  having  preserved  a  substantial  kernel  of 
actual  historical  and  concrete  fact. 

ST.  LUKE 

Much  that  has  been  said  of  the  first  Gospel  may  be 
taken  as  applying  also  to  the  third.  As  in  St.  Matthew, 
the  main  sources  are  St.  Mark  and  the  Logia.  St.  Luke 
follows  the  order  of  the  second  Gospel,  but  has  prefixed 
two  chapters  of  introduction,  added  some  accounts  of 
Christ's  appearances  after  the  Resurrection,  and  inserted 
into  St.  Mark's  narrative  a  good  deal  of  parable  and  dis- 
course material,  the  most  noticeable  being  the  two  sections 
vi.  20  to  viii.  3  and  ix.  5 1  to  xviii.  14.  Much  of  this  no  doubt 
came  from  the  Logia,  but  some,  in  particular  some  passages 
in  the  so-called  Peraean  section,  ix.  51  to  xviii.  14,  is  often 
thought  to  have  been  derived  from  a  third  source.  Writers 
who  think  that  St.  Luke  used  such  a  special  source  for  the 
most  part  hold  that  he  gave  it  the  preference  over  his 
other  sources,  and  some  believe  that  he  has  also  used  it  in 
composing  the  first  half  of  the  Acts.i  If  it  be  ever 
possible  to  reconstruct  this  special  source  with  any  cer- 
tainty, we  shall  then  have  three  primary  sources  for  the 
history  of  the  life  of  Christ :  {a)  St.  Mark,  {b)  the  Dis- 
courses of  St.  Matthew,  (c)  St.  Luke's  special  source.    The 

^  Feine,  Eine  vorkanoniscke  Ueberlieferung  des  Lk.,  1891  ;  B.  Weiss  in 
**  Luke  "  in  Meyer's  Kom.^  257,  9  Aufl. 


I 


220      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

first  two  must  be  earlier  than  the  year  70  A.D.,  the  third 
may  be  later,  but  St.  Luke  seems  to  have  valued  it 
highly,  and  the  parables  which  presumably  come  from  it 
approve  themselves  as  of  the  same  level  of  historical  value 
as  the  miracles  and  parables  of  St.  Mark  and  the  Logia. 
Some  writers  have  endeavoured  to  find  traces  of  a  con- 
nection between  St.  Luke's  special  source  and  the  Court 
of  Herod.i 

So  far  we  have  dealt  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels  alone. 
It  is  now  necessary  to  summarise  very  briefly  the  results 
of  critical  examination  of  the  remaining  books.  It  would, 
of  course,  be  possible  to  present  an  imposing  list  of  names 
of  scholars  who  defend  the  traditional  authorship  of  every 
writing  of  the  New  Testament.  In  England,  Dr.  Sanday 
(with  some  reservation  in  the  case  of  2  Peter)  and  Dr. 
Salmon ;  in  Germany,  Drs.  B.  Weiss  and  T.  Zahn ;  in 
Switzerland,  the  late  Professor  Godet,  have  all  made  con- 
tributions to  the  defence  of  tradition,  which  represent  the 
high-water  mark  of  scholarship.  But  those  who  read  this 
paper  will  wish  to  know,  not  how  many  great  names  can 
be  ranged  on  the  side  of  tradition,  but  whether  scholars  of 
repute  and  judgment  find  reason  to  question  this  tradition, 
and  if  so  to  what  extent  they  reject  it.  It  will,  therefore,  be 
advisable  to  point  out  as  briefly  as  may  be  the  extent  to 
which  criticism  still  questions  the  traditional  authorship  of 
the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

Of  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  may  be 
said  that  it  is  generally  admitted  that  it  is  the  work 
of  the  writer  who  composed  the  third  Gospel.  It  is 
also  admitted  that  it  must  date  from  the  close  of  the 
first,  or  from  the  early  years  of  the  second  century. 
Harnack  gives  as  a  probable  date  78-93, ^  Wendt 
95-100,3    Jiilicher    100-105,*    McGiffert   81-96,5    Moffatt 

^  Plummer,  SL  Luke,  xxv.  ^  Chroiiol.y  i.  250. 

»  Meyer's  Kom.,  40.         *  Einl.^  262.         ^  Apost.  Age^  437. 


I 


THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES  221 

"the  middle  period  of  the  reign  of  Domitian/'^  Schmiedel 
105-130.2  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  tendency 
amongst  critical  writers  to  deny  the  Lucan  author- 
ship of  both  books.  So  Julicher,  Schmiedel,  McGiffert, 
Moffatt.  The  objections  raised  to  the  authorship  of 
St.  Luke  are  not  very  convincing,  and  it  is  import- 
ant to  notice  that  in  any  case  the  sections  of  the  Acts 
in  which  the  first  person  is  used  (the  so-called  we- 
sections)^  must  almost  certainly  be  attributed  to  him.  But 
it  does  not  very  much  matter  whether  he  did  or  did  not 
write  the  entire  work  (Gospel-Acts).  The  author  has 
certainly  made  use  of  written  sources  in  the  Gospel,  and 
there  is  a  presumption  that  he  did  the  same  in  the  Acts. 
The  work  of  historical  criticism  in  examining  the  value  of 
these  sources  and  of  the  whole  work  cannot  be  dispensed 
with,  whether  St.  Luke  or  some  other  were  the  writer. 
Only  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Acts  would  his  authorship 
as  that  of  an  eye-witness  give  to  the  narrative  a  value 
which  it  would  not  otherwise  possess.  In  truth,  the 
general  agreement  of  critics  as  to  the  date  of  the  Acts  is 
of  very  much  more  importance  than  their  partial  disagree- 
ment as  to  its  authorship.  Written  at  the  end  of  the  first 
century,  i.e.  within  seventy  years  of  the  earliest  event 
which  it  records,  it  is  quite  clearly  an  attempt  to  sketch  in 
a  straightforward  and  unprejudiced  manner  the  history  of 
the  Christian  Church  to  the  period  of  St.  Paul's  Roman 
imprisonment.  The  writer,  whether  he  were  St.  Luke  or 
another,  may  have  made  mistakes  in  details,  he  may  have 
sometimes  given  a  onesided  impression  of  an  event  or 
series  of  events  ;  but  the  general  reader  will  always  believe 
that  a  book  of  so  early  a  date,  written  in  so  unpretentious 
a  style,  is  worthy  of  regard  as  in  the  main  a  trustworthy 
historical   witness,  and   in   that   belief    he   will   probably 

^  Historical  New  Testament,  418.  ^  Encycl,  Bib,y  i.  50. 

'  xvi.   10-17,  XX.  5-16,  xxi.  1-8,  xxvii.  i-xxviii.  16, 


222      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

always  have  the  support  of  the  main  body  of  serious 
historical  students. 

When  we  pass  to  the  Pauline  Epistles  we  find  that 
the  twentieth  century  opens  with  a  very  wide  agreement 
as  regards  their  genuineness.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  now 
almost  universally  acknowledged  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  dates  from  the  first  century  and  is  by  an 
unknown  author.  On  the  other  hand,  doubts  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  remaining  letters  have  gradually  been 
narrowed  in  scope  until  they  affect  at  all  seriously  only 
one  or  two  Epistles.  There  is  a  very  widely  spread  feeling 
that  the  so-called  Pastoral  Epistles  may  indeed  contain 
Pauline  elements,  but  are  not  in  their  present  form  genuine 
letters  of  the  Apostle.^  And  there  are  individual  scholars 
who  find  difficulty  in  accepting  the  Pauline  authorship  of 
2  Thessalonians,^  Colossians,^  and  Ephesians,^  although 
the  general  tendency  amongst  critical  writers  is  in  the 
direction  of  maintaining  the  authenticity  of  all  three 
writings. 

With  regard  to  the  writings  ascribed  to  St.  John,  it 
can  hardly  be  said  that  criticism  has  reached  any  assured 
results.  Those  who  defend  the  traditional  authorship  of 
the  Gospel  rely  upon  the  strength  of  the  second-century 
evidence  in  its  favour,  and  endeavour  to  show  that  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  Gospel  is  not  unfavourable  to  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  critics  who  deny  the  apostolic  author- 
ship point  to  features  of  the  Gospel  which,  as  they  suppose, 
are  incompatible  with  it,  and  endeavour  to  minimise  the 
weight  of  the  second-century  tradition  in  its  favour.  It 
must  be  admitted  that,  in  ignorance  of  the  tradition,  no 

1  Weizsacker,  Apost.  Age,  i.  218,  Lond.,  1894;  Holtzmann,  Einl.t 
272-92;  Harnack,  Chronol.^  480;  JtfLiCHER,  Einl.y  Ii2flf.  ;  McGiFFERT, 
Apost.  Age,  398  fF. ;  Bacon,  Introduction,  130  fF. ;  Moffatt,  Hist.  New 
Test.,  556-63. 

2  Weizsacker,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann.  '  Weizsacker. 
*  Vv'eizsacker,  Holtzmann,  Schmiedel. 


ST.  JOHN  223 

modern  scholar  would  be  likely  to  ascribe  the  Gospel  in 
its  present  form  to  one  of  the  twelve  Apostles.  The 
entire  representation  of  Christ's  person  and  teaching  is 
very  different  from  that  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and 
seems  to  represent  a  later  stage  of  tradition.  In  St.  Mark, 
e.g.,  Christ  is  depicted  as  One  who  seemed  to  shrink  from 
proclaiming  His  Messiahship ;  who  in  the  early  part  of 
His  ministry  charged  -those  whom  He  healed  to  tell  no 
man,  and  forbade  the  demons  to  speak  because  they  knew 
that  He  was  the  Christ ;  who  gradually  unfolded  the 
doctrine  of  His  divinity,  and  then  only  to  His  disciples. 
But  in  the  fourth  Gospel  we  have  One  who  is  introduced 
to  us  in  the  first  chapter  as  the  Logos  of  God,  and  who 
from  the  very  beginning  of  His  ministry  proclaims  Him- 
self as  the  Son  of  God.  Again,  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
the  subject-matter  of  the  Lord's  teaching  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven — its  privilege,  its  responsibilities,  the  necessary 
qualifications  of  its  citizens — whilst  the  expression  of  this 
teaching  is  cast  in  parable  and  in  short  saying ;  but  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  we  have  instead  long  discourses,  which  re- 
volve ever  round  one  theme— the  Person  of  Christ,  and 
what  that  meant  to  the  disciples  and  the  world.  There 
are  a  number  of  other  points  in  the  Gospel  which  suggest 
a  late  stage  of  Gospel  tradition,  of  which  two  only  can 
be  alluded  to  here.^  There  is  the  fact,  e.g.,  that  the  writer 
seems  to  have  made  use  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels ;  and 
again  that  other  fact,  that  in  the  Prologue  he  seems  to 
show  acquaintance  with  the  Alexandrian  speculative  phil- 
osophy, which  is  best  represented  for  us  in  the  writings  of 
Philo.  Lastly,  there  is  the  general  impression  made  upon 
many  modern  readers  that  the  Gospel  is  the  work  of  one 
who,  looking  back  upon  the  life  of  Christ  over  many  years 

^  Cf.  the  summary  of  features  which  suggest  a  late  date  in  Moffatt,  495- 
497,  but  only  long  and  careful  study  of  the  Gospel  can  make  it  possible  to 
estimate  at  their  true  worth  the  points  which  are  there  raised.  Wendt's  Das 
Johunnesevan^enum,  pp.  1-43,  is  deserving  of  notice  in  this  connection. 


224      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

of  Church  development,  is  recasting  that  Hfe  in  the  light 
of  the  experience  gained  during  a  long  period  of  Christian 
life  and  thought.  It  is  easy  to  say  that  if  we  suppose 
St.  John  to  have  lived  to  an  advanced  age,  all  these  points 
find  their  solution.  But  is  that  really  the  case  ?  Is  there 
not  between  John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  the  eye-witness  of 
the  life  of  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Christian 
philosopher  and  theologian  who  wrote  this  Gospel  on  the 
other,  a  gulf  in  respect  of  time  and  thought  and  relation 
to  historic  fact  which  it  is  difficult  to  bridge  ? 

Those  who  defend  the  apostolic  authorship  give  a 
negative  answer  to  questions  like  this,  and  appeal  to  the 
verdict  of  history  in  the  second -century  tradition.  At 
first  sight  this  seems  very  convincing.  At  the  end  of  the 
second  century  Irenaeus  states  that  the  Gospel  was  written 
at  Ephesus  by  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord.^  Now 
Irensus  in  his  youth  had  seen  Polycarp,^  and  of  Polycarp 
it  is  recorded  that  he  had  had  intercourse  with  John  and 
with  the  rest  who  had  seen  the  Lord.^  In  other  words, 
the  belief  current  in  the  Church  at  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  that  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  wrote  the  fourth 
Gospel,  seems  to  find  in  Polycarp  its  connecting  link  with 
the  Apostle  himself.  And  yet  those  who  on  internal 
grounds  are  sure  that  the  Gospel  is  not  in  its  present  form 
the  work  of  an  Apostle,  find  a  way  of  escape  from  the 
authority  of  this  early  tradition.  In  a  fragment  of  Papias 
preserved  by  Eusebius,  H,  E.,  iii.  39,  mention  is  made  of 
John  the  Presbyter,  who  seems  to  be  distinct  from  John 
the  Apostle.  It  is  urged  that  the  whole  second-century 
tradition  which  ascribes  the  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  is  due 
to  a  confusion  of  Apostle  and  Elder.  Either  there  were 
at  Ephesus  towards  the  close  of  the  second  century  two 
Johns— John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  at  a  later  period 
John  the  Elder,  the  teacher  of  Polycarp— or  John  the  son 

1  Adv.  Har.,  iii.  i,  I.      "  Adv.  Har.,  iii.  3,  4.      »  Eus.,  ff.  E.,  v.  20. 


1 


ST.   JOHN  225 

of  Zebedee  was  never  there  at  all,  and  the  assertions  of 
his  residence  there  are  due  to  a  mistaken  confusion  of  him 
with  his  namesake  the  Elder.  As  a  result  of  the  un- 
certainty which  these  considerations  introduce  into  the 
external  evidence,  and  of  the  indications  afforded  by  the 
Gospel  itself  of  its  late  date,  many  scholars  of  reputation 
feel  themselves  obliged  to  abandon  or  modify  the  tra- 
ditional authorship  of  the  Gospel.^  Some  believe  that  the 
Gospel  is  based  upon  Johannine  tradition,  so,  e.g.,  Wendt,^ 
who  endeavours  to  discover  a  Johannine  written  source 
worked  over  by  the  composer  of  the  Gospel  in  its  present 
form.  In  respect  of  date  there  is  considerable  unanimity ; 
150  A.D.  is  the  extreme  limit  on  the  one  side,  and  most 
writers  would  prefer  100  A.D.^  The  authorship  will  per- 
haps always  remain  an  open  question  determined  in  differ- 
ent directions  by  different  scholars  on  subjective  grounds. 
Conservatives  will  always  argue  that  they  find  it  difficult 
to  believe  that  in  the  main  the  sayings  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  do  not  represent  the  teaching  of  the  Christ  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  and  that  if  this  is  so  the  Johannine 
authorship  accounts  for  their  preservation  in  the  Church 
as  no  rival  theory  can  do. 

Of  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  two  statements  may  be 
made  with  some  certainty:  it  was  composed  in  the  first 
century  and  it  is  largely  based  upon  earlier  sources.  The 
latter  fact  is  not  easily  harmonised  with  apostolic  author- 
ship, and  the  style  of  the  book  is  so  different  from  that  of 
the  Gospel  that  the  two  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  come 
from  the  same  author.  But  of  course  if  the  Gospel  be 
regarded  as  Johannine,  not  as  it  now  exists,  but  only  in 
the  sense  that  it  is  based  upon  Johannine  tradition,  the 

1  Weizsacker,  ii.  260  ff.  ;  Holtrmann,  Einl.^  3rd  ed.,  453  ff.  ;  Harnack, 
659  ff.;  McGiffert,  614  ff.;  Julicher,  251  ff. 

2  Das  Johannesevangelium,  1900. 

a^      *  Harnack  gives  80-uo  A.D.;  Julicher,  100-125  A.D. 


226      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

objections  to  the  apostolic  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse 
would  be  lessened. 

With  regard  to  the  '^Catholic''  Epistles  not  a  few 
critical  writers  are  agreed  as  to  the  impossibility  of 
maintaining  their  apostolic  authorship.  The  adverse 
evidence  is  most  convincing  in  the  case  of  2  Peter.  It 
is  not  possible  to  present  this  here  in  detail,  and  different 
aspects  of  it  will  affect  differently  constituted  minds  in 
different  ways.  But  the  following  are  some  of  the  more 
important  arguments  against  the  authenticity  of  the 
letter :  (i)  No  trace  of  the  letter  can  be  found  in  the 
early  Church  until  the  third  century.  It  is  difficult  to 
explain  the  silence  of  the  second  century,  if  the  letter 
were  written  by  the  Apostle  about  the  middle  of  the  first 
century.  (2)  The  author  has  borrowed  from  the  Epistle 
of  Jude.  This  literary  dependence  is  almost  inconceivable 
in  one  who  occupied  the  position  of  the  Apostle  Peter. 
(3)  The  author  seems  to  speak  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  as 
though  they  were  already  regarded  as  on  a  level  with 
"the  other  Scriptures."  On  these  and  on  other  grounds 
the  opinion  that  the  Epistle  really  belongs  to  the  second 
century  has  been  winning  many  adherents.  Even  in 
England  there  are  now  some  who  feel  that  the  case 
against  the  letter  is  very  strong.  Dr.  Sanday,  in  1893,  ex- 
pressed this  with  wise  and  reverent  caution  and  sobriety.^ 
And  in  the  third  volume  of  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary 
(1900)  Dr.  Chase,  after  a  long  and  exhaustive  examination 
of  the  evidence,  sums  up  against  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistle. 

Probably  most  English  writers  would  admit  the  diffi- 
culties which  surround  the  apostolic  authorship  of  this 
letter,  but  would,  however,  hold  that  these  difficulties  are 
overwhelmingly  greater  than  those  raised  in  the  case  of 
any   of  the  other   Epistles.     In   Germany,  however,  and 

*  Inspiration^  348. 


CATHOLIC   EPISTLES  22; 

in  America,  scholars  of  admitted  ability  assign  all  the 
"Catholic"  Epistles  to  the  early  years  of  the  second 
century/  and  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  this  view  will 
win  an  increasing  number  of  adherents  in  spite  of  the 
staunch  defence  made  by  conservative  writers,  e.g.  by 
E.  B.  Mayor  of  the  authenticity  of  James,^  by  Dr.  Bigg 
of  I  and  2  Peter  and  Jude  {Intern.  Crit,  Com),  and  by 
Zahn  3  of  all  these  Epistles. 

Thus  we  may  conclude  {a)  that  scholars  of  all  shades  of 
opinion  are  agreed  that  the  four  Gospels,  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Apocalypse 
are  all  writings  of  the  first  or  of  the  early  years  of  the 
second  century;  {U)  that  whilst  there  is  not  the  same 
agreement  as  to  the  authorship  of  these  books,  most 
writers  believe  that  the  second  Gospel  was  written  by 
St.  Mark,  that  in  the  first  and  third  Gospels  there  lie 
embedded  fragments  of  a  work  by  St.  Matthew,  and  that 
the  we-sections  in  the  Acts  were  written  by  St.  Luke ; 
if)  that  there  is  practical  unanimity  in  maintaining  the 
genuineness  of  the  majority  of  the  Epistles  ascribed  to 
St.  Paul ;  (d)  that  writers  are  not  agreed  with  regard 
to  the  date  and  authorship  of  the  "Catholic"  Epistles. 
What  bearing  have  these  facts  upon  the  value  of  the 
New  Testament? 

^.—JUSTIFICATION  OF  CRITICISM  AS  APPLIED 
TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

(a)  Criticism  Necessary. — In  the  first  place,  whatever 
may  seem  to  be  its  bearing  upon  the  value  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  application  of  critical  methods  to  the  New 
Testament  writings  is  justifiable  because  it  is  necessary ; 
it  is  necessary  because  we  want  to  know  what  the  writers 

1  Weizsacker,  Holtzmann,  Harnack,  Jiilicher,  McGiffert. 

*  The  Epistle  of  St.  Jatnes.     Lond.  1892. 

•  EinUitung.     Leipsig,  1897-9. 


228      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

of  its  separate  books  wrote  down,  and  who  they  were.  To 
the  first  question  our  printed  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment give  us  no  final  answer,  and  we  are  compelled  to 
enter  through  the  gate  of  examination  of  manuscripts 
upon  the  uneven  path  of  textual  criticism.  To  the  second 
question  tradition  furnishes  us  with  an  answer,  but  no 
tradition  is  of  any  value  until  and  unless  it  has  stood  the 
test  of  an  historical  examination  of  its  claim  to  be  accurate 
and  reliable.  Thus  we  are  led,  whether  we  like  it  or  not, 
into  the  territory  of  the  higher  criticism,  i.e.  investigation 
into  the  value  of  the  traditional  account  of  the  date  and 
authorship  of  the  various  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  no  possible  way  of  escape,  unless  we  are  willing 
to  accept  without  question  the  judgment  of  the  past ; 
nothing  for  it  but  to  begin  to  collect  data,  and  to  test  this 
judgment  at  the  bar  of  history.  As  soon  as  we  do  that, 
tradition  is  found  to  be  of  varying  value.  The  extent  of 
that  uncertainty  it  is  our  duty  to  determine. 

(b)  Criticism  Primitive. — And  in  this  connection  again 
it  must  always  be  remembered  that  biblical  criticism  is 
not  a  new  thing  within  the  Christian  Church,  but  an  old 
thing.  It  flourished  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  it 
lay  dormant  during  the  period  of  the  Roman  supremacy, 
it  awoke  to  new  life  at  the  Reformation,  it  has  found  ever- 
increasing  scope  for  its  activity  during  the  past  century. 
Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Canon 
of  Scripture  are  well  aware  that  some  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  received  into  the  Canon  only  after 
much  doubt  and  hesitation,  and  that  certain  other  books 
were  only  excluded  after  much  debate  and  uncertainty.^ 
In  other  words,  there  have  always  been  doubts  with  regard 
to  the  authorship  of  some  of  the  Canonical  books  ;  and 
nineteenth -century  critics,  in  giving  expression  to  those 
doubts,  are  not  doing  a  new,  but  an  old  thing.     But  the 

*  San  DAY,  Inspiration^  Lecture  I. 


NECESSITY   OF   CRITICISM  229 

area  of  debate  has  been  enlarged.  The  modern  critical 
writer  finds  himself  equipped  with  resources  which  earlier 
writers  lacked.  He  is  possessed  of  a  fulness  of  knowledge 
which  was  not  within  their  reach,  and  he  is  therefore  in 
a  position  to  see  difficulties  in  the  traditional  accounts 
of  Church  writings  where  they  found  nothing  to  awaken 
suspicion. 

(c)  Criticism  Apologetic. — And,  thirdly,  it  is  commonly 
supposed  that  historical  criticism  is  destructive  in  its 
tendencies,  destructive  of  the  historical  character  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  destructive  of  the  good  faith  of 
their  authors,  destructive  of  the  Christian  faith  in  the  New 
Testament  as  the  vehicle  of  a  divine  revelation.  The  exact 
reverse  is  the  truth.  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  is 
and  must  be  apologetic  and  defensive.  The  reason  of 
this  may  be  found  in  some  such  considerations  as  the 
following. 

During  the  nineteenth  century  the  science  of  literary 
criticism  made  very  rapid  progress.  At  the  present  day 
every  literary  product  of  a  past  age  is  subjected  to  a 
minute  and  searching  examination  before  it  can  be 
assigned  to  its  proper  place  in  history,  and  before  the 
contribution  which  it  makes  to  history  and  to  the  de- 
velopment of  life  and  thought  can  be  properly  appreciated. 
Now  it  was  impossible  to  withhold  the  New  Testament 
literature  from  the  scrutiny  of  that  criticism  which  em- 
braces every  other  known  form  of  literature.  The  question 
which  presented  itself  to  scholars  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  was  this.  How  will  the  New  Testament 
stand  the  test  of  historical  inquiry  carried  out  on  principles 
in  accordance  with  modern  historical  science  ?  Had  it 
been  possible  to  withhold  the  New  Testament  from  such 
inquiry,  an  incalculably  mischievous  blow  would  have  been 
dealt  to  the  human  conscience  and  to  the  authority  of  the 
Bible.     The  result  of  the  inquiry  so  far  as  it  has  pro- 


230      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 


ceeded,  has  been  to  show  that  as  witnesses  for  the  life  of 
Christ  and  the  life  and  thought  of  the  early  Church,  the 
New  Testament  writings  need  fear  no  criticism.  Criticism 
has  reasserted  their  value,  and  has  shown  that  when  sub- 
jected to  the  severest  tests  of  modern  science  they  are 
found  to  be  historical  documents  of  first-rate  importance. 
It  has  made  it  possible  for  Christian  men  to  continue  to 
believe  in  the  historical  value  of  the  New  Testament  with 
an  unsullied  conscience.  But  how  could  they  have  con- 
tinued to  assert  their  faith  in  the  value  of  these  writings 
as  historical  records,  if  they  had  been  the  victims  of  an 
uneasy  surmise  that  an  examination  of  the  historical 
character  of  the  Gospels  on  scientific  methods  would  ex- 
pose their  fictitious  character  and  destroy  their  credibility? 
From  this  point  of  view  criticism  comes  to  the  succour  of 
conscience,  and  is  the  bulwark  of  faith. 

It  may,  however,  be  said  that  criticism  throws  doubt 
upon  the  authorship  of  some  of  the  books,  and  there- 
fore upon  their  value.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  the 
value  of  the  Bible  depends  very  little  upon  questions  of 
authorship,  and  the  value  of  the  contents  of  its  books 
should  be  sharply  distinguished  from  the  value  of  the 
traditional  statements  about  the  men  who  wrote  them. 
Probably  the  first  thing  that  a  Christian  wishes  to  be 
assured  of  with  regard  to  his  New  Testament  is  that  it 
gives  him  a  faithful  record  of  the  life  of  Christ.  In  other 
words,  he  wishes  to  have  some  certainty  of  its  high  value 
as  an  historical  record.  In  this  respect  criticism  has 
rendered  inestimable  service.  In  proving  that  there  can 
be  little  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  most  of  St.  Paul's 
letters,  and  in  fixing  the  first  decade  of  the  second  century 
as  the  period  before  which  the  four  Gospels  must  all  have 
been  written,  it  has  set  at  rest  for  ever  doubts  as  to  the 
chief  features  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  the  Founder 
of  Christianity.     The  question  of  date  is  very  important, 


THE  TRUE   VALUE   OF  CRITICISM      231 

because  historical  records  are  generally  speaking  of  greater 
or  less  value  in  proportion  to  their  relative  nearness  to 
the  events  which  they  describe.  This  is  certainly  the  case 
with  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  If  it  could  have  been  proved 
that  these  writings  originated  from  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  their  value  as  historical  documents  would  certainly 
be  less  than  it  is.  But  when  we  have  shown  them  to  be 
genuine  works  of  the  first  century,  representing  with 
great  fidelity  the  belief  of  the  Christian  Church  within  a 
half-century  of  Christ's  death,  the  question  of  authorship 
becomes  of  very  little  practical  importance.  What  we 
want  to  be  assured  of  is  the  historical  value  of  the  con- 
tents of  these  books.  It  is  of  secondary  importance  to 
know,  e.g.^  whether  John  Mark  wrote  the  second  Gospel,  or 
some  other  Church  writer  whose  name  remains  unknown 
to  us. 

Thus  the  services  of  criticism  in  the  defence  of  the 
historical  background  of  the  Christian  faith  can  hardly  be 
estimated  too  highly.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the  Chris- 
tian has  historical  sources  for  the  life  of  Christ  which  have 
been  tested  in  the  crucible  of  scientific  criticism,  and  have 
been  proved  to  be  documents  of  the  first  century,  and  of 
a  very  high  order  of  historical  accuracy.  So  that  it  is  no 
longer  possible  for  writers,  who  wish  to  maintain  a  reputa- 
tion for  sober  judgment,  to  represent  these  books  as  quite 
worthless  forgeries  of  late  date.  Again,  in  the  undoubted 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  Christian  has  evidence  of  the 
growth  and  belief  of  the  early  Church  which  it  is  no 
longer  possible  to  set  aside  or  to  reject.  This  is  all  that 
the  ordinary  Christian  desires,  or  can  have.  What  he 
wants  is  some  degree  of  certainty  that  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  are  in  the  main  trustworthy;  that  they 
are  acknowledged  to  be  so  by  a  majority  of  students  of 
history;  that  in  trusting  them  he  is  not  placing  faith  in 
writings   which   scientific   historians   have   shown    to    be 


232      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

worthless,  but  is  dealing  with  works  of  admittedly  very 
great  historical  importance.  All  this  criticism  gives  him, 
and  he  can  ask  no  more.  Outside  the  limits  of  this 
general  agreement  lies  the  land  of  debate  and  question. 
The  historian  regards  all  literary  documents  with  a  search- 
ing scrutiny  for  which  the  ordinary  man  has  neither  time 
nor  inclination.  The  work  of  the  historian  more  and  more 
ceases  to  be  a  sharp  dividing  between  true  and  false,  right 
and  wrong.  It  becomes  a  delicate  handling  of  proba- 
bilities, a  weighing  of  possible  conclusions  against  others 
more  probable. 

So  it  is  with  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  For 
the  professed  historian  general  agreement  as  to  date  and 
historical  value  is  only  the  prelude  to  a  searching  inquiry 
into  the  more  subtle  and  finer  questions  which  every  book 
will  suggest  to  him.  For  the  ordinary  Christian  these 
have  no  meaning.  Secure  in  the  belief  that  he  is  dealing 
with  books  which  are  in  the  main  what  they  profess  to 
be,  he  reads  them  just  as  he  reads  any  ancient  documents, 
with  a  healthy  disregard  of  the  minuter  details  of  criticism, 
which  he  regards  as  necessary  subjects  of  inquiry  for 
experts,  but  as  of  little  practical  value  for  himself. 

The  question  of  authorship  assumes,  however,  rather  a 
different  aspect  when  we  pass  from  the  professedly  historical 
to  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  In  some 
respects  nothing  is  lost  by  the  admission  that  we  are 
ignorant  of  the  authorship  of  some  of  these  writings. 
The  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  a  crucial  one. 
Few  will  now  defend  the  Pauline  authorship ;  yet  the 
letter  can  in  no  sense  be  said  to  lose  in  value  because  the 
writer's  name  is  unknown.  For  nearly  nineteen  centuries 
the  Epistle  has  borne  its  witness  to  divine  truths,  and 
brought  instruction  and  consolation  to  human  hearts.  It 
does  not  cease  to  do  so  when  we  find  that  not  St. 
Paul  but  some  other  wrote  it.     Some  indeed  will  hold  this 


CRITICISM   AND   AUTHORSHIP  233 

to  be  a  gain.  St.  Paul  is  known  to  us  from  other  writings. 
In  the  author  of  this  Epistle  we  add  one  to  the  number  of 
our  spiritual  acquaintances,  and  can  stretch  out  our  hands 
across  the  centuries  to  thank  one  more  great  teacher  who, 
having  found  the  Pearl  of  Great  Price,  has  written  the 
history  of  his  discovery  in  words  that  have  been  a  per- 
petual joy  to  every  successive  generation  of  seekers  after 
God.  Let  any  who  cling  to  traditions  of  authorship  ask 
themselves  whether  they  really  can  believe  that  this 
Epistle  loses  in  value  because  it  has  been  shown  that  St. 
Paul  did  not  write  it.  Still,  in  the  case  of  this  Epistle 
as  in  that  of  the  first  Gospel  the  assertion  of  authorship 
does  not  form  part  of  the  writings  themselves,  but  of  the 
Church  tradition  with  reference  to  them.  There  are  many 
who  will  feel  that  they  have  no  objection  to  giving  up  the 
traditional  authorship  of  these  books,  but  that  in  the  case 
of,  e.g.,  2  St.  Peter  a  definite  claim  is  made  to  authorship 
which  is  a  perversion  of  truth  if  the  letter  were  not  written 
by  the  Apostle.  This  objection  has  a  good  deal  of  force 
which  it  is  useless  to  deny.  We  should  all  probably  regard 
genuine  letters  of  an  Apostle  as  possessing  a  higher 
interest  than  letters  by  an  unknown  Church  writer  of 
the  second  century.  But  it  would  be  going  very  much 
too  far  to  say  that  if  this  Epistle  and  the  other  Catholic 
Epistles,  or  some  of  them,  be  eventually  acknowledged 
as  second-century  works  they  lose  their  value.  They  may 
lose  a  certain  flavour  of  personal  interest ;  they  cease  to 
throw  light  upon  the  character  and  life  of  their  reputed 
authors.  They  become  evidence  of  the  literary  habits  and 
Church  life  and  thought  of  the  period  in  which  they  were 
written.  But  if  they  ever  had  any  dogmatic  value,  they 
cannot  lose  it.  If  the  thoughts  contained  in  them  are 
profound,  they  cannot  cease  to  be  so.  If,  in  short,  these 
letters  ever  contained  any  teaching  about  God  which  is  of 
importance  or  any  practical  exhortation  to  Christian  men 


234      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

which  is  useful,  the  change  in  our  belief  as  to  their  author- 
ship can  neither  deprive  that  teaching  of  its  importance, 
nor  that  exhortation  of  its  permanent  utility. 

C— VALUE 

In  the  preceding  pages  the  results  already  reached  in 
New  Testament  criticism  have  been  stated,  and  its  applica- 
tion justified. 

Some  attempt  must  now  be  made  to  estimate  the  per- 
manent value  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  light  of  what 
has  been  said,  (a)  Historical, — In  the  first  place  it  is  of 
value  for  the  historian.  Without  it  the  story  of  the  Life 
of  the  Redeemer  would  be  practically  unknown,  and  the 
early  history  of  the  Christian  movement  involved  in 
obscurity.  For  the  life  of  Christ  we  have,  in  the  first 
place,  such  evidence  as  can  be  gathered  from  the  letters  of 
a  great  teacher  like  St.  Paul,  writing  within  a  period  of 
thirty  years  from  the  death  of  Christ.  Secondly,  we  have 
the  Gospels.  The  evidence  which  these  afford  has  to  be 
sifted  like  the  evidence  of  any  literary  historical  sources. 
But  when  so  sifted  they  prove  themselves  to  be  witnesses 
of  a  very  high  order  in  respect  of  the  sources  upon  which 
they  are  based,  and  of  nearness  in  point  of  time  to  the 
events  described. 

For  the  history  of  life  and  thought  in  the  early  Church 
we  have  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  letters  of  St.  Paul, 
and,  whatever  be  the  facts  as  to  their  authorship  and  date, 
the  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse. 

(b)  Dogmatic, — And  secondly,  if  the  New  Testament 
has  an  essential  value  as  a  collection  of  historical  records, 
it  has  further  an  acquired  value  in  view  of  its  history 
within  the  Church.  It  has  always  been,  and  is  to-day, 
the  standard  of  belief  and  the  test  of  false  doctrine. 
Partial  and  one-sided  estimates  of  the  character  and 
Person  of  Christ,  doctrines  of  God  which  contain  a  germ 


PERMANENT   VALUE   OF  THE   N.T.      235 

of  truth  distorted  so  as  to  become  unreal  and  untrue, 
theories  of  Church  order  and  ordinance  which  develop 
one  fundamental  truth  at  the  expense  of  others,  all  these 
have  in  the  past  suffered  the  inevitable  fate  which  sooner 
or  later  overtakes  human  perversions  of  truth,  as  men 
have  re-read  the  New  Testament  and  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  is  better  to  hold  to  the  many  aspects  of 
truth  there  revealed  than  to  magnify  one  out  of  its  due 
proportion  and  remain  blind  to  the  others.  The  God  of 
Marcion,  the  Christ  of  Arius,  the  God  of  Calvin,  the 
Christ  of  Socinus,  the  doctrinally  infallible  pope  of  the 
Roman,  the  verbally  infallible  Bible  of  the  Protestant 
Churches,  these  are  a  few  examples  of  which  the  Eccle- 
siastical historians  could  furnish  many  others. 

(c)  Religious, — But,  thirdly,  to  most  Christian  people 
the  main  value  of  the  New  Testament  writings  lies  not 
in  the  fact  that  they  are  faithful  witnesses  to  the  making 
of  the  Christian  Church  and  the  source  of  the  Christian 
Creed,  but  in  a  quality  which  belongs  to  them  and  to 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  in  a  degree  to  which 
no  other  records  can  lay  claim.  As  we  read  them  we  find 
that  they  claim  to  be  an  authoritative  expression  of  the 
Divine  Character  and  the  Divine  Will,  and  this  claim 
when  tested  at  the  bar  of  the  human  conscience  is  found 
to  be  justifiable,  and  is  approved.  They  exhibit  as  in  a 
mirror  the  traits  of  the  Divine  Personality  after  whom 
the  heart  of  man  is  ever  searching,  and  the  Christian 
finding  here  a  Revelation  of  God  realises  that  he  has 
that  eternal  life  which  consists  in  knowledge  of  God  and 
of  Jesus  Christ  whom  He  has  sent.  Again  they  portray 
the  fundamental  needs  and  wants  of  the  human  character, 
and  the  Christian  as  he  reads  feels  that  what  is  written 
there  was  written  of  himself.  It  is  in  this  direct  appeal 
of  the  New  Testament  to  the  human  conscience  that  its 
inspiration   lies.     That   the   religious   value   of  the   New 


236      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

Testament  is  bound  up  with  the  ideas  of  Revelation  and 
Inspiration  is  plain.  The  difficulty  is  to  give  to  these 
terms  clear  definition.  Indeed  definition  must  for  the 
present  content  itself  with  negative  rather  than  with 
positive  methods.  On  the  one  hand,  a  conception  of 
Inspiration  such  as  that  commonly  understood  by  the 
phrase,  verbal  Inspiration,  which  can  only  maintain  its 
ground  by  denying  the  legitimacy  of  the  application  of 
critical  methods  to  the  Sacred  Books,  is  thereby  self- 
condemned,  and  must  be  set  aside  as  arbitrary.  On  the 
other  hand,  critical  writers  who  suppose  that  a  result  of 
their  work  has  been  the  elimination  of  the  element  of 
inspiration,  fail  to  appreciate  the  limitations  of  criticism. 
Inspiration  is  a  quality  which  cannot  possibly  be  diminished 
by  increase  of  true  knowledge.  Of  course  if  critical  in- 
quiry had  resulted  in  the  discovery  that  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  were  third-century  compilations,  and 
that  they  were  entirely  works  of  the  imagination  without 
historical  foundation,  their  claim  to  be  works  of  historical 
value,  and  to  be  inspired  as  being  the  historical  records 
of  a  revelation  made  at  a  particular  period,  would  at 
once  be  seen  to  be  groundless.  But  in  the  light  of  what 
has  been  said  on  page  231,  the  claim  of  the  New  Testament 
to  contain  the  record  of  a  Divine  revelation  still  makes 
itself  heard  when  criticism  has  done  its  work,  and  that 
with  all  the  more  cogency  and  impressiveness,  since 
criticism  has  anticipated  and  set  aside  a  thousand  possible 
objections.  The  truth  is  that  the  question  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Bible,  i.e.  whether  or  no  it  contain  a  revelation 
of  God,  is  really  independent  of  criticism.  It  is  a  part 
of  the  larger  question,  Is  there  a  God  who  can  reveal 
Himself?  and  is  cognate  to  the  similar  questions.  Is  there 
a  Revelation  in  Nature?  Is  there  a  Revelation  in  History? 
Is  there  a  Revelation  in  Christ?  Now  the  existence  of 
God  is  to  some  men  a  fact  which  needs  no  special  proof 


INSPIRATION   AND   REVELATION       237 

because  everything  of  which  they  are  conscious  illustrates 
it.  To  others  it  is  a  conception,  unreal  so  far  as  they 
themselves  are  concerned,  which  may  or  may  not  be  true, 
but  which  is  incapable  of  proof.  Is  there  a  Revelation 
in  Nature  ?  To  some  men  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  the 
glory  of  the  Lord — "earth  crammed  with  heaven,  and 
every  common  bush  afire  with  God."  Others  find  there 
no  traces  of  His  presence.  Is  there  a  Revelation  in 
Christ?  For  some  men  this  question  receives  daily 
affirmation  in  their  experience.  To  others  it  is  a  merely 
speculative  inquiry  to  which  no  certain  answer  can  be 
given.  Is  there  a  Revelation  in  History?  To  some  men 
the  development  of  human  life  and  thought  is  inexplicable 
without  the  presupposition  of  the  Divine  Mind  directing, 
guiding,  controlling  it.  To  others  such  an  assumption 
is  wholly  superfluous  and  misleading.  Certainly  the 
existence  of  God  cannot  be  proved — cannot,  that  is  to 
say,  be  expressed  in  terms  which  will  coerce  the  intellect 
and  compel  the  belief  of  those  who  do  not  already  find 
God  to  be  a  necessary  factor  in  life's  experience.  So- 
called  proofs  of  His  existence  are  not  really  proofs,  even 
to  those  who  believe  in  Him.  The  facts  stated  as  being 
of  the  nature  of  proofs  are  the  expression  of  belief,  not 
the  cause  of  it.  They  presuppose  belief,  and  do  not  create 
it.  We  believe,  because  God's  existence  is  as  much  a  part 
of  our  consciousness  as  our  own  existence.  I  exist — God 
exists  in  and  outside  me.  I  am  conscious  of  my  own 
existence ;  I  am  conscious  of  a  fuller  existence,  of  which 
mine  is  a  part.  I  call ;  He  answers.  But  this  factor 
of  experience,  this  element  in  consciousness  can  never 
be  so  stated  as  to  convince  others,  because  any  formal 
statement  of  it  is  a  statement  of  a  part  of  it  only,  which 
standing  by  itself  is  unreal  and  lifeless.  Of  what  use  to 
argue  that  Nature  bears  the  impress  of  a  reasoning  Mind, 
to  men  who  see  no  such  impress  there?     As  a  matter 


238      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

of  fact,  we  ourselves  do  not  rise  from  a  contemplation 
of  Nature  to  a  belief  in  God.  Rather  it  is  because  we 
find  God  to  be  a  part  of  our  consciousness  that  we  are 
able  to  recognise  Him  in  the  natural  world.  The  con- 
sciousness of  God  illumines  every  side  of  our  environ- 
ment. 

Moreover,  consciousness  of  God's  being  implies  the 
co-operation  of  every  part  of  a  man's  being.  It  is  I  who 
am  conscious  of  God,  not  merely  my  intellect,  but  my 
moral  nature  and  my  volitional  nature.  Consequently 
any  expression  or  formal  statement  of  God's  existence 
which  appeals  only  to  the  intellect,  must  be  partial  and 
one-sided  and  unreal.  Hence  there  can  be  no  proof  of 
God's  existence,  and  it  follows  that  it  is  impossible  to 
prove  that  the  Bible  is  a  history  of  God's  revelation  of 
Himself  to  mankind. 

But,  nevertheless,  those  who  find  God  in  consciousness 
will,  for  the  most  part,  be  ready  to  recognise  that  much 
that  is  said  of  Him  in  the  Bible  corresponds  to  His  true 
nature  and  Being.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  here  what 
has  already  been  said  in  another  essay  in  this  volume 
with  regard  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  essential  pre- 
supposition of  Revelation  is  the  existence  of  God.  Do 
we  find  God  to  be  in  some  sense  a  part  of  the  moat 
elementary  phenomena  of  consciousness?  Then  much 
that  is  said  about  Him  in  the  Old  Testament  will  approve 
itself  to  us  as  a  true  expression  of  His  nature,  and  the 
proper  way  of  stating  the  process  which  led  to  this 
expression  will  be,  not  that  it  is  a  development  of  thought 
due  to  natural  causes,  but  that  the  Old  Testament  writers 
give  expression  to  their  consciousness  of  God,  who 
revealed  himself  to  them  in  increasing  degree  as  history 
progressed.  And  since  we  find  this  developing  conscious- 
ness of  the  Divine  life  in  the  Jewish  people  to  an  extent 
in  which  we   find   it   nowhere  else   in   the  pre-Christian 


INSPIRATION   OF  THE   N.T.  239 

world,  we  may  rightly  say  that  the  literature,  which  is 
the  record  of  its  growth,  is  inspired  in  a  higher  degree 
than  any  other  pre-Christian  literature.  But  when  we 
pass  to  the  New  Testament  the  question  becomes  more 
complicated  and  intricate.  Here  we  have  to  deal  with 
a  new  factor.  It  is  no  longer  a  question  only  of  God 
in  history,  but  of  God -in -C/irist  in  history.  The 
question  of  Revelation  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
consequently  of  its  inspiration,  depends  almost  entirely 
upon  the  attitude  adopted  towards  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation.  And  with  regard  to  this  it  must  be  said 
clearly  that  consciousness  of  the  Divine  life  of  God  and 
perception  of  the  Divine  element  in  Christ  are  two  very 
different  things.  There  is  this  fundamental  difference 
between  them.  Knowledge  of  God  is  for  many  men  not 
an  inference  from  the  facts  of  consciousness,  but  a  part 
of  those  facts.  But  knowledge  of  God-in-Christ  is  such 
an  inference.  "  We  saw  and  (then)  believed."  Now  there 
are  many  who  find  themselves  conscious  of  the  Divine  life 
of  God,  and  who  therefore  trace  Him  in  Nature  and  in 
history,  who  do  not  find  themselves  able  to  give  that 
explanation  of  the  life  of  Christ  which  is  given  in  the 
Christian  Creeds.  These  will  very  probably  assent  to  the 
definition  of  the  Revelation  and  Inspiration  of  the  Old 
Testament  just  stated.  But  how  will  they  regard  the 
New  Testament?  They  will  probably  be  inclined  to 
draw  a  distinction  between  the  Gospels  as  containing 
the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  remaining  books.  Revela- 
tion, they  will  urge,  implies  fresh  development,  new 
growth.  Writers  who  express  for  the  first  time  a  new 
aspect  of  the  Divine  life  may  rightly  be  called  inspired. 
Hence  Revelation  carries  with  it  the  idea  of  advance,  and 
Inspiration  implies  originality.  Consequently  it  might  be 
urged  that  the  Gospels  stand  on  the  same  footing  as  the 
Old  Testament,  representing  the  final  stage  of  that  grow- 


240      MODERN  CRITICISM  AND  THE  N.T. 

ing  consciousness  of  God's  moral  nature  and  attributes 
to  which  the  Old  Testament  writers  give  expression.  Just 
in  as  far  as  Christ  gave  utterance  to  aspects  of  God's 
being  and  will  which  had  not  previously  been  expressed, 
just  so  far  God  was  revealing  Himself  through  Christ,  and 
the  records  which  enshrine  His  teaching  may  be  called 
records  of  Revelation,  and  so  inspired  writings.  But  in 
the  case  of  the  remaining  books  there  will  seem,  to  those 
who  are  here  represented,  this  difference.  St.  Paul  and 
the  rest,  it  will  be  urged,  in  so  far  as  they  give  utterance 
to  fundamental  truths  of  the  human  consciousness,  re- 
affirm what  was  said  before  them,  lack  originality,  fail 
in  creativeness.  They  are  engaged  in  applying  truths 
already  revealed,  and  it  is  just  in  their  method  of  applica- 
tion that  they  will  seem,  to  the  class  of  theistic  observers 
who  are  here  represented,  to  lay  themselves  open  to 
criticism  and  question.  But  this  paper  is  mainly  intended 
for  that  other  class  of  people  who,  starting  from  their 
consciousness  of  God  in  life,  find  themselves  able  to  yield 
assent  to  the  doctrine  of  God-in-Christ  as  contained  in 
the  Christian  Creeds.  This  conception  seems  to  them  to 
so  illumine  and  explain  the  whole  of  their  experience 
as  to  assume  an  aspect  of  irresistible  truth.  It  explains 
the  personality  of  the  historical  Christ  of  the  Gospels, 
it  is  so  fitting  a  completion  of  the  gradual  revelation  of 
God  in  the  history  of  the  pre-Christian  world,  it  so  verifies 
itself  when  tested  in  the  experience  of  their  own  life,  that 
it  soon  ceases  to  be  an  inference  drawn  from  contemplation 
of  historical  facts,  and  becomes  a  guiding  principle  of  life, 
and  the  most  simple  way  of  expressing  consciousness  of 
the  divine.  How  will  such  as  these  define  the  Inspiration 
of  the  New  Testament  ? 

And  with  the  Gospels  the  answer  is  comparatively  easy. 
They  are  the  records  of  the  words  and  works  of  Christ,  and 
these  are  the  vehicles  of  revelation  about  the  nature  of  God 


INSPIRATION   OF  NEW  TESTAMENT    241 

and  His  will  in  a  degree  to  which  no  others  can  approxi- 
mate, inasmuch  as  their  author  was  one  who  was  not,  like 
the  prophets  of  old,  expressing  truth  about  God  of  which 
He  had  become  conscious,  but  was  Himself  the  manifesta- 
tion in  Human  nature  of  the  Divine  life.  Everything, 
therefore,  that  He  spoke  comes  to  us  as  an  authoritative 
utterance  which,  when  rightly  understood  and  interpreted, 
claims  the  immediate  obedience  of  men. 

The  inspiration  of  the  remaining  books  is  less  easy  to 
define.  Their  claim  to  inspiration  is  based  upon  the 
assumption  that  in  the  main,  they  express  the  Will  of 
God  in  Christ.  The  religious  value,  e.g.^  of  St.  Paul's 
letters  depends  upon  the  supposition  that  the  great 
Apostle  has  rightly  understood  and  applied  the  teaching 
of  Christ  Himself.  In  so  far  as  he  has  done  that  his 
letters  may  be  regarded  as  containing  the  revelation  of 
the  will  of  God  in  Christ,  and  as  inspired  by  Him  in  a 
degree  to  which  no  post-apostolic  writings  have  ever  laid 
plausible  claims.  In  the  same  way  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  may  be  regarded  as  a  record  of  the  revelation  of 
God  in  Christ  to  the  primitive  Church,  and  will  stand  on 
the  same  level  of  inspiration  as  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  Catholic  Epistles,  if  they  be  ulti- 
mately approved  as  apostolic,  will  stand  on  the  same 
level  as  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  If  they  be  shown  to  be  second- 
century  writings  they  must  be  regarded  as  inspired  just 
in  so  far  as  they  contain  the  expression  of  truth  about  the 
nature  and  will  of  God  which  is  in  harmony  with  the 
teaching  of  Christ.  With  regard  to  the  Apocalypse  it 
must  be  confessed  that  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  or  define 
its  inspiration.  It  has  been  said  that  "  the  central  feature 
of  the  Apocalypse  "  is  "  its  intense  longing  for  the  Advent 
of  Christ  and  His  Kingdom,  with  its  confident  assertion  of 
the  ultimate  victory  of  good  over  evil  and  of  the  dawning 
of  a  state  of  blissful  perfection  where  sorrow  and  sighing 

R 


24^     MODERN  CklTlCiSM  AND  THE  N.T. 

shall  flee  away."^  In  this  confident  assertion  some  will  find 
an  element  of  revelation. 

In  what  has  hitherto  been  said  the  quality  of  inspira- 
tion has  been  sought  only  in  the  contents  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  But  Christian  people  will  probably 
always  see  in  their  history  in  the  Church  a  proof  that  in  a 
special  sense  God  has  been  pleased  to  make  use  of  them 
as  the  medium  of  His  revelation  to  mankind. 

In  conclusion,  the  claim  of  the  Bible,  the  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  the  New,  may  be  said  to  lie  in  its  revelation  of 
the  Divine  nature  and  the  Divine  will.  Just  in  so  far  as 
this  is  recognised  will  its  authority  be  regarded  as  para- 
mount. It  appeals  directly  to  the  human  heart  and  con- 
science. The  God  who  revealed  Himself  to  the  Jewish 
people  as  Righteous  and  Compassionate  is  the  God  of 
whom  the  human  heart  is  ever  conscious.  Men  find  that 
what  is  said  in  the  Bible  of  the  nature  of  God  and  His 
purposes  and  His  will  awakens  in  their  own  moral  being  a 
responsive  echo.  Just  as  all  who  are  conscious  of  God's 
being,  recognise  His  revelation  in  Nature,  and  worship 
Him  as  there  revealed  in  beauty  and  in  power,  so  they 
recognise  His  revelation  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  people 
and  in  the  person  of  Christ,  and  worship  Him  as  revealed 
in  righteousness  and  in  redeeming  love.  To  such  as  these 
the  records  of  this  revelation  will  always  be  invested  with 
a  sacredness  of  association  which  makes  them  unique  and 
unparalleled  in  literature. 

*  Sanday,  Inspiration^  p.  378. 


VI. 

THE    CHURCH 

By  a.  J.  CARLYLE 

Page 

I.  The  subject  of  the  Essay  is  the  visible  Church  .  .  .  244 
Why  should  there  be  a  visible  society  at  all  ?    The  question  in  religion 

is  the  same  as  in  all  other  departments  of  life — Human  life  is 
impossible  except  in  society,  and  so  also  religious  life.  Besides, 
the  religious  life  consists  not  only  in  relations  of  man  with  God, 
but  also  in  relations  of  man  with  his  fellow-men     .  .         .     245 

II.  Why  should  the  religious  society  have  an  organisation  ?  .  .  248 
Anarchism  in  religion  and  in  life  .  .  ...  249 
Organisation  is  the  only  method  of  efficiency  and  of  permanency       .     249 

III.  The  Church  is,  then,  an  organised  society  .  ...  250 
How  did  this  organisation  arise  ?      .                 .  ...     250 

1.  During  the  Ufe  of  our  Lord  the  organisation  was  only  rudimentary 

— In  the  apostolic  church  it  gradually  grows — The  Twelve — The 
Seven — The  Presbyters  or  Bishops — Importance  of  the  charis- 
matic gifts — Gradually  two  classes  of  office  appear,  the  one 
exercised  in  virtue  of  a  spiritual  gift,  the  other  in  virtue  of  the 
authority  of  the  society  .  .  ...     250 

The  condition  of  things  illustrated  by  the  Didache.     Gradually  the 
prophetic  office  declines  in  importance     .  ...     253 

2.  In  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  we  can  trace  the  beginnings 

of  distinctions  among  the  officials  of  the  Church — The  Bishop 
in  the  Ignatian  letters — Contrast  with  Western  conditions  as 
illustrated  by  Clement,  etc. — But  gradually  the  differentiation 
became  universal       .  .  .  ...     254 

3.  Beginning  of  organisation  of  unity  between  the  various  Christian 

communities  —  The  Apostles  —  The  Didache  —  Beginning  of 
synodical  organisation  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century 
—The  Metropolitical  and  Patriarchal  office  .  .         .     254 

4.  Western  Patriarchate  of  Rome  gradually  claims  supremacy  over 

all  others — The  East  wavers,  but  finally  refuses  submission — 
Western  Church  monarchical,  Eastern  Church  federal        .         .     255 

5.  Services  of  Western  organisation  to  religion   and   civilisation — 

Period  of  predominance  from  Hildebrand  to  Boniface  VIII. 
destroys  the  Empire  but  falls  before  the  national  spirit— Con- 
ciliar  movement  of  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries — Its  failure 
— The  great  revolt  of  the  sixteenth  century— Northern  Empire 
breaks  away  ,  .  .  ...     256 

243 


244  THE   CHURCH 

Page 

IV.  The  teaching  authority  of  the  Church  .  ,  ,        .     257 
What  this  means                 .                 .                 .                 ...     257 

1.  The  authority  of  our  Lord  .  .  ...     258 

2.  The  prophetic  office  in  the  early  Church — It  gradually  passes  away 

3.  Church  left  with  the  record  of  the  Lord's  teaching  and  actions, 

and  with  a  collection  of  apostolic  and  prophetic  writings— For 
some  time  appeal  often  made  to  the  tradition  of  apostolic 
teaching  in  various  churches — Authority  of  this  tradition,  that  of 
faithful  recollection  .  .  ...     258 

4.  Very  gradually  there  arose  a  notion  that  the  Church  as  a  whole  had 

an  authority  similar  to  that  of  the  prophetic  office.  Gradually 
this  hardens  into  the  notion  of  the  infallible  authority  of  an 
CEcumenical  Council — In  the  West  this  authority  was  thought 
by  some  to  belong  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  well  as  to  the 
CEcumenical  Council  .  .  ...     259 

V.  At  the  close  of  Middle  Ages,  then,  the  Western  Church  claimed  an 

absolute  authority  in  discipline,  an  infallible  authority  in  doctrine  260 
Theory  culminates  when  the  moral  order  of   mediseval  society  was 

breaking  down  .  .  .  ...     260 

Such  were  the  circumstances  out  of  which  the  Reformation  arose       .     261 

VI.  The  starting-point  of  the  Reformation  the  dispute  about  Indulgences 
Revolt  of  the  serious  religious  spirit  against  a  formal  and  merely 

external  conception  of  religion  .  ...     262 

1.  Negatively  its  character  lay  in  repudiation  of  the  authority  of  the 

Church  as  involved  in  great  and  serious  abuses       .  .         .     262 

2.  Positively  it  is  in  the  affirmation  of  the  principle  of  religion  as 

internal     .  .  .  .  ...     264 

Meaning  of  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  ,  .         .     266 

VII.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  Reformation  on  the  theory  of  the 

Church?    .  .  .  .  ...     266 

The  Reformation  a  revolt  against  the  theory  of  absolute  authority  in 

the  Church  .  .  .  ...     267 

This  is  the  position  of  all  Reformed  Churches  .  ,         .     267 

Our  divisions  no  doubt  in  part  are  the  consequence  of  this  .         .     268 

We  no  longer  acquiesce  in  these,  but  must  strive  for  the  reunion  of 

Christendom  .  ,  .  ...     268 

VIII.  The  great  revolt  was  necessary,  but  we  do  not  repudiate  the  past, 

nor  claim  to  be  its  heirs  .  .  ...  269 
But  we  must  assert  that  there  can  be  no  unalterable  form  for  the  life 

of  the  Church            .                 .                 .                 ...  269 

The  organisation  of  the  Church  must  be  adapted  to  its  needs  .  .  269 
We  must  do  our  best  under  our  present  conditions  while  we  seek  to 

remedy  them              .                 .                 .                 ...  269 

For  Christian  men  are  still  and  truly  united  in  Christ      .            •        .  269 

WHEN  we  consider  the  subject  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  when  we  desire  to .  ask  what  is  its 
character,  what  is  its  place  in  the  religious  life,  what  is 
its  authority,  we  are  at  once  confronted  with  an  ambiguity. 


NATURE   OF   SOCIETY  245 

The  phrase  "  The  Church  "  may  obviously  be  used  in  two 
senses :  it  may  be  used  of  the  society  of  men  throughout 
the  world  who  have  been  admitted  into,  and  continue 
members  of,  the  visible  Society  of  Christian  men,  or  it 
may  be  used  in  the  sense  of  the  whole  body  of  those 
throughout  the  world  who  are  in  living  communion  with 
Christ,  a  body  of  men  known  only  to  God,  not  easily  to  be 
described  under  the  terms  of  a  visible  society. 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  discuss  the  relation  borne 
to  each  other  by  the  two  senses  in  which  the  word 
may  be  used,  for  in  this  essay  it  is  the  visible  Church 
which  is  to  be  considered.  The  visible  Church  is  the 
society  of  Christian  men,  of  all  those  who  have  been 
admitted  into,  and  continue  witHin  the  society.  What 
is  the  function  or  object  of  this  Christian  society,  what 
is  its  character,  what  is  its  authority? 

What  is  the  function  or  object  of  the  society?  Why 
should  the  disciples  of  Christ  form  a  society  at  all?  It 
is  admitted  that  the  relation  between  God  and  man  is 
very  really  the  relation  between  God  and  the  individual 
man.  Is  this  relation  not  independent  of  all  external 
conditions  and  circumstances,  a  relation  which  no  man 
can  produce  for  another  man,  and  which  no  man  can, 
properly  speaking,  hinder  in  another?  If  the  relation  is 
of  this  kind,  what  need  is  there  for  a  society  at  all  ? 

Such  questions  are  natural,  but  they  ignore  the  char- 
acter and  principles  of  human  life.  To  look  upon  the 
individual  as  leading  a  self-dependent  or  self-centred  life 
is  to  mistake  the  character  and  conditions  of  human  life. 
Man  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  dependent  on  his  fellow- 
men  in  every  part  of  life.  From  man  he  receives  life, 
by  the  co-operation  of  his  fellow-men  he  is  maintained  in 
life.  He  lives  upon  the  efforts,  the  labours  of  his  fellow- 
men,  not  only  of  his  own  time,  but  of  all  times.  This, 
which  is  obvious  enough  with  regard  to  man's  life  on  its 


246 


THE   CHURCH 


hypsical  side,  is  true  also  on  the  moral  and  spiritual  side. 
It  is  through  our  relation  to  our  fellow-men  that  we  learn 
the  true  meaning  of  life,  it  is  from  them  that  we  derive 
our  moral  and  spiritual  conceptions.  No  doubt  there  is 
individuality  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  life,  as  indeed 
there  is  also  in  the  physical,  but  it  is  normally  conditioned 
and  even  determined  by  the  moral  and  spiritual  ideas  of 
our  fellow-men.  It  is  no  more  in  accordance  with  the 
normal  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God  that  a  man  should 
learn  and  lay  hold  of  the  truth  without  the  intervention 
of  his  fellows,  than  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  normal 
operation  of  God  that  the  physical  life  should  be  thus 
independent.  No  doubt  there  is  a  direct  and  immediate 
communion  of  the  soul  with  God,  but  man  normally 
comes  to  this,  and  is  maintained  in  it,  by  the  work,  by 
the  co-operation  of  his  fellow-men. 

Society  is  therefore  as  much  a  necessity  normally  of  the 
spiritual  life  as  it  is  of  the  physical.  We  have  long  ago 
given  up  the  notion  that  progress  is  to  be  gained  by 
striving  to  return  to  a  condition  in  which  man,  as  was 
once  supposed,  was  independent  of  his  fellow-men.  We 
have  learned  that  this  conception  is  as  contrary  to  the 
true  idea  of  progress,  as  this  notion  of  primitive  life  is 
inconsistent  with  the  actual  history  of  mankind.  We 
must  acknowledge  that  in  the  field  of  religion  the  error 
would  be  quite  as  great.  Progress  is  not  to  be  won  by 
the  mere  destruction  of  society,  but  only  by  the  continual 
readjustment  of  the  forms  and  methods  of  society  to  the 
actual  conditions  and  character  of  life.  Destruction  of 
false  social  conditions,  of  conventional  and  unnecessary 
forms,  may  often  be  necessary,  but  we  destroy  only  to 
reconstruct.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  man  can  lift  up  his 
heart  to  God  without  the  intervention  of  his  fellow-men, 
but  it  is  through  his  fellow-men  that  he  has  learned  to 
know  God,  to  turn  to  Him,  to  love  Him.     We  cannot  in 


BROTHERHOOD  247 

the  religious  life,  any  more  than  in  other  departments  of 
life,  do  without  the  inspiration,  the  instruction  which  we 
receive  from  all  generations  of  our  fellow-men.  We  are  to 
each  other  ministers  of  grace,  not  only  of  that  which  may 
be  more  specially  called  sacramental,  but  of  all  kinds. 

But  this  is  not  all.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  religious 
life  is  centred  upon  our  relation  to  God,  from  whom  all 
things  come,  through  whom  all  things  live ;  no  doubt  the 
religious  life  is  centred  upon  the  relation  between  God 
and  man's  soul.  But  that  is  not  the  whole  of  the  religious 
life.  We  are  not  only  the  children  of  the  Eternal  Father, 
but  we  are  the  brothers  of  all  His  children.  Not  in  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  alone  does  the  religious  conception 
of  life  find  its  source  and  meaning,  but  in  the  Brotherhood 
of  man.  It  is  true  that  the  first  commandment  is  "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,"  but, 
"  The  second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself."  Upon  these  two — not  upon  one  only — do  all 
the  law  and  the  prophets  hang. 

If  it  is  necessarily  true  that  the  life  which  is  com- 
munion with,  relation  to,  the  Father  of  mankind,  requires 
the  continual  co-operation,  the  mutual  assistance  of  men, 
it  must  be  obvious  that  the  life  of  relation  to  our  fellow- 
men  is  itself  the  life  of  co-operation,  of  mutual  assist- 
ance, of  mutual  love.  This  life  is  the  life  of  society,  of 
association,  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  the  function 
of  the  Christian  Church  to  promote  the  true  spirit,  the 
true  character  of  the  common  life  of  mankind.  It  is  its 
function  to  train  men  to  look  at  each  other  justly,  in  the 
right  spirit,  with  the  right  heart.  The  Church  is  no  doubt 
in  one  sense  a  society  selected  from  mankind,  but  it  is 
selected  in  order  that  men  may  be  trained  within  the  asso- 
ciation for  the  brotherly  life,  inside  and  outside  of  the 
association.  It  has  been  by  one  of  the  most  unhappy  per- 
versions of  the  true  Christian  conception  that  the  society 


248  THE   CHURCH 

of  Christian  men  has  sometimes  been  looked  upon  as 
though  it  were  the  sole  field  for  the  carrying  out  of  the 
Christian  life  of  brotherhood,  and  not  simply  the  training 
school  for  the  life  of  brotherhood  among  all  mankind. 
It  is  surely  impossible  so  to  misread  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Gospels,  under  the  influence  of  a  strained 
interpretation  of  the  conflict  between  the  Church  and  the 
world.  But  indeed  the  Christian  heart  has  continually 
striven  to  correct  the  sometimes  perverted  Christian  head 
in  this  great  matter. 

The  function,  then,  of  the  Christian  society  is  to  nourish 
the  religious  life,  the  life  of  communion  with  God  our 
Father,  the  life  of  communion  with  our  brother. 

Such,  then,  are  the  functions,  such  is  the  necessity  for  the 
Christian  society:  what  is  its  organisation,  what  is  its 
machinery?  Again,  it  has  been  sometimes  thought  that 
organisation  and  machinery  are  only  harmful  to  society, 
especially  to  the  society  of  the  Church.  There  are 
anarchists  in  religion  as  well  as  in  ordinary  life.  And 
anarchism,  whether  it  is  the  protest  against  the  exaggera- 
tion of  the  mechanical  in  life,  or  the  revolt  against  the 
false  in  the  organisation  of  life,  has  its  own  relative  truth 
and  value.  But  when  the  anarchist  maintains  that  society 
in  the  general  can  act  without  organisation,  we  can  only 
answer  that  he  misreads  the  history  of  the  human  race. 
The  answer  to  anarchism  is  written  on  the  whole  face  of 
history.  The  advance  of  civilisation  has  in  large  measure 
been  worked  out  through  the  development  of  the  machinery 
of  social  life ;  the  inspiring  ideas  of  the  great  leaders  of 
mankind  would  have  been  lost,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
fact  that  they  have  embodied  themselves  in  institutions. 
Nature  is  not  unorganised,  vague,  fluctuating,  but  is 
articulate,  ordered  and  persistent  in  order. 

One  great  general  principle  at  least  the  somewhat 
sterile   abstractions   of  Political   Economy  have   brought 


PRINCIPLE   OF  ORGANISATION  249 

home  to  the  human  intelligence,  the  principle  that  all 
human  progress  is  won  by  the  division  of  labour,  that 
it  is  only  through  the  discharge  of  particular  functions 
by  each  member  of  society  that  society  advances.  What 
is  this  but  the  principle  of  organisation  in  society?  It 
is  not  otherwise  in  the  Church.  Here,  too,  prevails 
the  same  general  principle  as  that  which  dominates 
society  in  the  general.  In  the  religious  society,  just  as 
much  as  in  the  "secular,"  if  we  allow  ourselves  for  the 
moment  to  use  a  misleading  phrase,  progress  can  only 
be  achieved  and  maintained  when  each  member  finds 
and  discharges  his  own  true  function.  It  is  upon  this 
principle  that  the  organisation  of  the  Christian  society 
is  based.  Nothing  is  more  clearly  brought  out  by  St. 
Paul,  whom  we  may  well  call  the  statesman  of  the 
early  Church,  than  this  great  conception.^  There  is  one 
body,  of  which  we  are  all  members,  but  in  the  one  body 
there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  diversities  of  service,  diversities 
of  workings.  It  is  God  who  works  "all  and  in  all,"  but 
not  in  the  same  fashion.  Each  member  of  the  body  has 
its  own  function,  its  own  appropriate  work ;  not  all  have 
the  same  functions — are  all  apostles,  are  all  prophets,  are 
all  teachers?  Each  member  has  its  own  function,  every 
Christian  has  his  own  gifts  or  gift,  for  the  well-being  of 
the  whole  body,  and  in  discharging  this  function,  in  exer- 
cising these  gifts,  he  finds  his  true  place  in  the  body. 

St.  Paul  at  least  saw  clearly  that  it  was  not  in  anarchy,  it 
was  not  in  the  want  of  order  that  the  true  hope  of  society 
lay,  but  rather  in  the  full  organisation  of  life.  It  is  this 
conviction  no  doubt  which  gave  him  so  clear  and  profound 
an  insight  into  the  principle  of  government  and  discipline 
in  human  society — a  principle  probably  little  understood 
by  some  of  the  primitive  Christian  societies— it  is  this 
which  led  him  to  recognise  so  clearly  that  the  government 

^  Compare  especially  i  Corinthians  xii. 


250  THE  CHURCH 

and  rule  even  of  the  "  secular  "  society  is  from  God,  that 
there  is  no  authority  but  from  God.  The  organisation 
and  authority  of  even  "secular"  society  is  divine,  not 
carnal  or  profane.  It  was  a  just  apprehension  of  this 
truth  and  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  on  the  point,  which  led 
Irenaeus  in  one  notable  passage  ^  to  urge  on  the  Christians 
of  his  time  that  Satan  was  only  lying,  as  was  his  custom, 
when  he  claimed  that  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  belonged 
to  him,  "  for  it  is  not  he  who  hath  appointed  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world,  but  God."  The  principle  that  society  needs 
organisation  is  clearly  as  important  in  the  Church  as  it  is 
in  all  human  society. 

The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is,  then,  a  society  of  faithful 
men,  organised  and  ordered,  with  the  divine  institutions  of 
government  and  discipline.  For  these  are,  of  a  certainty, 
divine  institutions,  necessary  in  all  human  relations,  and 
not  least  necessary  in  the  religious  associations  of  man. 
The  necessity  of  the  organisation  lies  in  the  characteristics 
of  society  and  is  witnessed  to  by  the  history  of  religion. 

In  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
we  can  see  the  gradual  development  of  these  institutions : 
we  can  see  the  organisation  of  the  Christian  society 
beginning  from  the  simplest,  the  most  rudimentary 
forms,  developing  gradually  into  the  complex  systems  of 
mediaeval  and  modern  Church  life.  For  the  history  of 
the  institutions  of  the  Christian  society  seems  in  the 
main  to  correspond  with  the  history  of  the  institutions 
of  other  societies ;  it  is  the  history  of  the  continual 
adaptation  of  the  forms  of  authority  to  the  actual  require- 
ments of  society. 

During  the  life  of  our  Lord  Himself  we  can  scarcely  say 
that  the  Church  has  more  than  the  germs  of  organisation ; 
there  are  to  be  found  traces  that  from  the  earliest  times 

^  Adv.  Mar.,  v.  24. 


ORGANISATION  OF  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  251 

the  Christian  society,  so  far  as  it  was  differentiated  from 
the  surrounding  Jewish  society,  exercised,  or,  perhaps 
rather,  could  exercise  a  certain  disciplinary  authority 
over  its  members.  The  power  of  binding  and  loosing, 
of  forgiving  and  of  retaining  of  sins,  whatever  may  be 
the  exact  significance  of  these  forms  of  authority,  belongs 
to  the  community.  Certain  persons  had  been  chosen  by 
our  Lord  to  be  His  constant  companions,  to  be  the 
witnesses  of  His  life  and  teaching,  and  had  been  occa- 
sionally sent  out  to  proclaim  the  advent  of  His  Kingdom. 
In  the  latter  function,  at  least,  they  are  said  to  have  been 
assisted  by  a  larger  number,  the  Seventy. 

Beyond  this  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  speak  of 
organisation.  With  the  removal  of  our  Lord  from  the 
sight  of  His  disciples,  with  His  ascension,  the  Society 
evidently  began  to  develop  rapidly.  At  first,  indeed,  it 
would  seem  that  beyond  the  teaching  function  of  the 
Twelve,  and  the  great,  though  undefined,  leadership  and 
influence  which  would  spring  from  that  source,  no  other 
differentiation  of  function  took  place.  But  within  a  few 
years  this  began  to  change.  It  was  found  that  another 
organisation  was  required  besides  that  whose  purpose 
it  was  to  proclaim  the  message  of  salvation  in  Jesus 
Christ.  In  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
we  have  a  clear  and  forcible  narrative  of  the  circumstances 
which  made  it  necessary  to  appoint  certain  officials  to  take 
charge  of  the  charitable  and  financial  affairs  of  the  com- 
munity. And  a  little  later  on  we  discover  that  there  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Christian  community  officers  whose 
exact  function  may  indeed  at  first  be  somewhat  uncertain, 
but  who  at  least  seem  to  take  a  prominent  part  in  the 
conduct  of  the  affairs  of  the  different  societies.  The  Pres- 
byters or  Bishops  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles  are  officers 
whose  duties  are  partly  charitable,  partly  administrative, 
and  partly  didactic,  though  it  may  perhaps  be  doubtful 


252  THE  CHURCH 

whether  in  the  New  Testament  this  last  function  belongs 
to  them  in  any  exclusive  sense. 

It  must  be  carefully  observed  that  alongside  of  this 
official  class  or  classes  (for  the  relation  of  the  officers  of 
Acts  vi.  to  the  Presbyters  can  hardly  be  ascertained)  there 
grew  up  an  organisation  of  function,  which  was  at  first  the 
more  important  in  the  primitive  Church. 

After  the  appointment  of  the  officials  of  Acts  vi.,  as  we 
may  understand,  the  Twelve  restricted  themselves  in  the 
main  to  their  function  as  preachers  of  the  gospel,  and  to 
a  general  oversight  of  the  affairs  of  the  community. 
They  had  been  specially  chosen  by  our  Lord  to  be  wit- 
nesses of  His  life,  of  His  teaching,  of  His  death  and  resur- 
rection, and  their  special  function  was  to  tell  men  what 
they  had  seen  and  heard.  It  would  not  appear  that  they 
claimed  any  absolute  or  exclusive  authority  in  the  dis- 
cipline and  government  of  the  society.  But  as  teachers 
their  authority  was  accepted  as  that  of  men  specially 
inspired  and  directed  by  God.  But  in  this,  though  their 
place  was  the  first,  they  were  not  alone.  Alongside  of  them 
there  appears  from  a  very  early  date  a  class  of  prophets, 
whose  position  may  be  somewhat  difficult  to  define,  but  of 
whom  it  may  at  least  be  asserted  that  in  the  judgment  of 
the  Church  they  spoke  at  times  under  the  inspiration  of 
God.  But  even  this  is  not  all.  It  is  impossible  to  study 
the  treatment  of  the  "gifts"  in  St.  Paul's  letters,  and 
especially  in  the  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  without 
recognising  that  the  functions  of  all  the  various  members 
of  the  early  Church  were  determined  in  the  main  by  the 
possession,  for  various  objects,  and  no  doubt  in  various 
degrees,  of  the  gifts  of  God's  Spirit  bestowed  upon  each 
individual  by  God  Himself  St.  Paul's  phrases  seem  to 
indicate  that  for  every  function  there  vyas  an  appropriate 
gift,  and  that  it  was  the  possession  of  the  gift  which 
marked  out  him  who  held  it  for  work  or  office  of  any  kind 


THE  TWO   OFFICES  253 

and  not  the  other  way.  It  is  to  misunderstand  the  nature 
of  the  organisation  of  the  primitive  Church  to  overlook 
this  fact,  and  to  treat  its  offices  as  though  they  were 
primarily  delegations  from  a  superior  authority. 

Gradually,  however,  these  various  functions  are  divided 
into  two  classes :  one  which  is  exercised  solely  in  virtue  of 
the  possession  of  some  spiritual  gift,  without  the  interven- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  community,  the  other,  in 
which  the  divine  gift  qualified  for  and  is  the  necessary 
precedent  to  the  office,  yet  which  normally  required  the 
authority  of  the  community,  or  its  representative,  for  its 
discharge. 

As  typical  of  these  two  classes  we  may  take  on  the  one 
side  the  Apostolic  and  Prophetic  office,  on  the  other  the 
Episcopate  and  Diaconate,  as  they  are  presented  to  us 
in  the  Didache.  The  Apostles  and  Prophets  may  be 
tested  by  the  community,  and  those  who  are  found  to 
claim  their  place  falsely  may  be  rejected,  but  the  com- 
munity has  no  power  to  confer  the  office.  The  Episcopate 
and  Diaconate  are  received  by  the  appointment  of  the 
community  itself,  but  no  doubt  still  after  the  preparatory 
trial  or  SoKijuiacrla,  which  should  show  whether  the  person 
examined  has  the  necessary  spiritual  gift.^ 

Such  is,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  early  history  of  the 
organisation  of  the  Christian  society.  At  first  indistinct, 
it  gradually  assumed  a  clearly  defined  character,  but  the 
process  was  gradual  and  very  possibly  proceeded  with 
different  degrees  of  rapidity  and  on  somewhat  different 
lines  in  the  various  Churches.  Assuming  that  all  the 
epistles  which  bear  St.  Paul's  name  are  written  by  him, 
we  may  be  inclined  to  think  that  there  is  not  only 
progress  visible  in  the  chronological  series  of  these,  but 
also   that   the    conditions    in    the    various    Churches    to 

*  Cf.  Didache^  xi.  and  xv. 


254 


THE  CHURCH 


which  he  writes  are  not  precisely  the  same.  However 
this  may  be,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  a  few  years 
later  the  Christian  societies  in  different  places  possessed 
an  organisation,  not  always  equally  fully  developed  or  on 
precisely  the  same  model. 

As  the  organisation  of  the  Churches  developed,  the 
functions  of  the  Bishops  or  Presbyters  seem  gradually  to 
become  more  clear  and  distinct,  and  the  importance  of 
the  prophetic  office  gradually  diminishes.  And  soon 
there  appears  within  the  College  of  Presbyters  or  Bishops 
a  new  distinction  of  rank  or  office.  At  first  it  does  not 
appear  that  any  one  of  these  occupied  any  special  pre- 
eminence, but  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  we 
find  from  the  Ignatian  letters  that,  at  least  in  certain 
Oriental  Churches,  one  of  these  officials  emerges  from  the 
rest,  as  the  centre  of  the  organised  system  of  the  com- 
munity. The  phenomena,  presented  to  us  by  the  letter  of 
St.  Clement  and  the  significant  silence  of  the  Ignatian 
letter  to  Rome  and  of  St.  Polycarp's  letter  to  Philippi,  to- 
gether with  the  indications  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas, 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  this  development  took  place 
first  in  the  Oriental  Churches,  and  only  gradually  extended 
to  the  West.  In  time,  however,  the  new  system  of  organi- 
sation spread  over  the  whole  of  the  Churches  and  became 
the  normal  type  of  Church  government. 

In  the  second  century  also  there  begins  to  appear  a 
system  of  organisation  by  which  the  Christian  Churches 
were  formally  united  to  each  other.  From  the  first  they 
had  been  most  closely  associated ;  if  there  was  no  distinct 
organisation  of  unity,  there  was  no  lack  of  the  sense  of 
unity.  During  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles  indeed,  these 
had  probably  served  as  the  main  connecting  links 
between  the  Christian  communities,  and  in  the  generation 
which  followed  them  their  places  had  been  possibly,  to 
some    extent,    taken    by    the    wandering    apostles    and 


PATRIARCHAL  ORGANISATION         255 

prophets  of  the  Didache.  As  these  in  their  turn  passed 
away,  the  need  for  a  more  formal  organisation  of  unity 
began  to  make  itself  felt.  And  accordingly,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  second  century,  we  begin  to  find  the  Bishops  of 
groups  of  Churches  in  various  places  uniting  together  for 
counsel,  for  deliberation  upon  common  interests  and 
common  action.  The  phenomena  of  Montanism  appear 
to  have  furnished  an  early  occasion  for  such  action,  and, 
about  the  same  time  or  a  little  later,  the  disputes  between 
the  Roman  Church  and  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor  as  to 
the  date  of  keeping  Easter  show  us  the  Churches  of 
Asia  deliberating  and  acting  together.  This  synodical 
system  developes  during  the  third  century  and  may  be 
said  to  culminate  in  the  Council  of  Nice,  in  which  at  last 
in  some  sense  the  whole  Church  was  represented. 

But  again,  just  as  the  College  of  Presbyters  or  Bishops 
in  the  individual  Churches  had  found  a  head  in  one 
person,  so  this  synodical  movement  in  the  Churches  soon 
developed  a  metropolitical  and  a  patriarchal  system.  In 
the  end  of  the  third  century  we  find  that  in  most  districts 
the  bishop  of  some  one  diocese  came  to  be  regarded  as 
having  a  pre-eminence  over  the  others.  The  canons 
of  the  Council  of  Nice  show  the  development  of  this 
system  into  the  great  Patriarchates.  The  great  Patri- 
archate of  Rome  gradually  claimed  pre-eminence  over  all 
others,  at  any  rate  in  the  West,  and  the  monarchical 
system  of  Church  organisation  was  completed  in  the  West 
when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  claimed  to  have,  and  was 
recognised  as  having,  supremacy  over  all  Churches.  The 
Oriental  Church  held  aloof,  wavering  sometimes,  but 
never  fully  accepting  the  claim  of  the  Roman  Patriarch. 
Gradually  the  Western  and  Eastern  Churches  drew  apart, 
the  monarchical  principle  growing  steadily  in  the  West, 
while  the  Eastern  Church  continued  to  have  the  character 
of  a  confederation  of  churches. 


256  THE   CHURCH 

The  services  rendered  by  this  great  organisation  of 
Western  Christendom  to  the  education  of  Western  Europe 
were  immense,  both  in  religion  and  civilisation.  It  may 
indeed  be  doubted  whether  any  other  system  could  have 
carried  religion  and  the  humane  arts  through  the  period  of 
confusion  and  anarchy  out  of  which  the  European  societies 
gradually  emerged.  It  was  the  Western  Church  which 
not  only  kept  alive  religion,  but  which  also  handed  on  the 
torch  of  civilisation  and  culture,  almost,  but  never  wholly, 
quenched,  to  the  new  world.  It  was  the  Western  Church 
which  gradually  tamed  the  barbarism  of  the  Teutonic 
races.  It  was  the  Western  Church  which  taught  the 
European  world  that  there  are  principles  of  society  greater 
than  the  principle  of  force.  From  Hildebrand  to  Boniface 
VIII.  the  Church  was,  if  not  actually  the  supreme  power 
of  Europe,  yet  at  least  the  greatest  single  force  in  Western 
Europe.  But  the  fall  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  virtually 
destroyed  by  the  Papacy,  was  soon  avenged  in  the  fall 
of  the  mediaeval  Papacy  itself.  To  outward  appearance 
Boniface  VIII.  was  a  figure  so  imposing,  so  lofty,  so  com- 
manding, that  it  might  have  been  thought  that  the  Roman 
See  was  at  the  very  height  of  its  power.  But  he  found 
himself  confronted  with  new  principles,  new  forces  in  Euro- 
pean society,  and  against  the  new  national  sense  of  France 
his  power  failed  him.  With  the  fall  of  Boniface  VIII.  the 
Papacy  fell  from  its  supreme  position  in  European  society ; 
and  in  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  it  was  confronted 
by  a  rising  of  the  organised  Church  against  itself.  The 
Conciliar  movement  shook  the  Papacy  almost  to  its  fall, 
but  the  Papacy  survived  a  movement  which  was  weak, 
because  there  lay  behind  it  no  living  impulse  of  religion, 
but  only  a  dissatisfaction  with  the  machinery  of  religion. 

It  was  different  with  the  great  revolt  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  Against  this  the  Papacy  did  indeed  defend 
itself,  and  that  by  the  only  weapons  which  could  possibly 


AUTHORITY   IN   DOCTRINE  257 

be  successful,  by  seriously  taking  up  the  task  of  reform  ; 
and,  so  reforming  itself,  it  won  back  much  that  it  had 
lost.  But  its  reform  came  too  late  to  avert  the  disruption 
of  Western  Christendom.-  With  a  light  and  careless  heart 
the  Papacy  met  the  first  movements  of  the  Reformation, 
and  before  it  had  apprehended  the  nature  of  the  questions 
at  issue,  Northern  Europe  had  broken  off  from  it  and 
remained  separate.  But  before  we  consider  the  character 
of  the  Reformation  in  its  bearing  upon  the  theory  of  the 
Church,  we  must  retrace  our  steps  and  consider  another 
question  with  regard  to  its  history,  namely,  the  develop- 
ment of  the  theory  of  the  teaching  authority  in  the 
Church  and  the  nature  of  this  theory. 

What  is  the  authority  of  the  Church  in  doctrine.^ 
What  does  it  mean?  How  has  the  conception  grown 
and  developed? 

We  must  be  careful  to  observe  that  in  the  society  of  the 
Church  there  is  an  element  or  characteristic  of  authority 
which  is  not,  at  least  in  the  same  manner  and  degree, 
present  in  other  societies ;  the  Church  exercises  not  only 
the  authority  of  discipline,  but  the  authority  of  a  teacher. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  further  the  authority  of  the 
Church  in  the  first  sense ;  in  considering  the  development 
of  the  organisation  of  the  Church  we  have  already  con- 
sidered the  mode  of  its  operation.  But  with  regard  to  its 
authority  as  a  teacher  the  matter  is  different :  the  history 
and  character  of  this  function  of  the  Church  must  be 
examined  and  traced. 

The  first  and  the  supreme  authority  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  is  the  authority  of  Christ  Himself.  While  He  was 
in  the  world  in  the  flesh,  there  was  always  one  final 
authority  to  whom  His  disciples  could  and  did  continually 
appeal.  But  with  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord  the  Church 
passed  into  a  somewhat  different  stage.  There  were  now 
s 


258  THE  CHURCH 

two  sources  of  authoritative  teaching:  the  one,  the  tradition 
of  our  Lord's  own  doctrine  and  sayings;  the  other,  the 
present  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  working  in  Christian 
men.  These  two  are  the  sources  of  truth  as  present  to 
the  consciousness  of  the  primitive  Church,  the  first  having 
from  the  earliest  days  the  authority  of  command,  the 
second  an  authority  of  interpretation  and  application. 

The  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  primitive  Church 
found  its  method  in  the  prophetic  office,  if  we  may  include 
in  this  the  apostolic,  though  perhaps  the  apostolic  authority 
was  primarily  that  of  the  veracious  witnesses  and  hearers 
of  our  Lord.  In  the  prophetic  office  the  Holy  Spirit 
did  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church  continually  speak  to 
Christian  men.  But  this  office  gradually  passes  away.  It 
is  only  necessary  to  compare  the  literature  of  the  New 
Testament  with  the  literature  of  the  sub-apostoHc  ages 
to  perceive  that  the  authoritative  character  of  the  pro- 
phetic tone  gradually  but  surely  gives  way  to  the  argu- 
mentative tone  of  the  ordinary  teacher.  The  prophetic 
office,  in  its  first  sense,  passed  away,  gradually,  indeed,  but 
finally,  and  left  no  ordinary  successor ;  though  there  is,  no 
doubt,  a  secondary  prophetic  office,  a  prophetic  authority 
in  men  speaking  under  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
which  has  not  passed  nor  can  pass,  which  still  speaks  in 
many  fashions. 

The  Church  was  left  with  the  tradition  of  the  teaching 
of  our  Lord  and  of  the  apostolic  or  prophetic  men  of  the 
first  generations  which  succeeded  His  ascension.  By  this 
time  the  tradition  of  our  Lord's  sayings  and  action  had 
assumed  a  more  or  less  definite  form  or  forms,  and  as  I 
think  one  can  easily  see  by  a  study  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  from  the  very  first  the  record  of  our  Lord's 
sayings,  taken  to  be  a  veracious  record,  is  of  commanding 
authority  in  the  Church. 

But  also,  the  Churches  were  by  this  time  in  possession  of 


AUTHORITY   OF   NEW   TESTAMENT     259 

a  considerable  body  of  writings  of  apostolic  and  prophetic 
men,  and  these  also,  as  proceeding  from  men  who  spoke 
under  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  evidently  looked 
upon  with  reverence,  and  from  year  to  year  more  distinctly 
assumed  a  position  of  authority  in  the  Churches.  The 
fact  that  the  Christian  Church  inherited  from  the  Jewish 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  made  easier  the 
process  by  which  an  authoritative  body  of  New  Testa- 
ment writings  was  gradually  formed  and  recognised.  At 
first,  indeed,  as  was  natural,  when  disputes  arose,  appeal 
was  made  to  the  traditions  of  the  Churches,  and  especially 
to  those  which  it  was  thought  had  possessed  some  special 
connection  with  one  or  more  of  the  principal  Apostles. 
As  late  as  the  end  of  the  second  century  such  an 
appeal  is  made  by  writers  like  Irenaeus,  confronted  with 
the  dangerous  tendencies  of  Gnosticism.  The  recorded 
and  preserved  teaching  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles 
might  not  in  all  cases  be  sufficiently  detailed  or  clear  to 
meet  some  special  difficulty,  and  in  such  cases  especially, 
an  appeal  to  the  traditional  beliefs  of  the  apostolic 
Churches  might  be  useful.  I  do  not  think  there  was 
in  all  this,  at  first,  any  notion  that  such  traditions  were 
in  themselves  authoritative ;  the  decision  with  regard  to 
this,  just  as  with  regard  to  the  authority  of  any  pro- 
fessedly apostolic  or  prophetic  work,  depended,  I  think, 
wholly  upon  the  question  whether  such  a  tradition  or 
such  a  work  could  establish  its  claims  to  apostolic  or 
prophetic  authority.  The  testimony  of  the  Church  was, 
for  a  long  time,  not  a  declaration  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  but  a  declaration  that  such  and  such  a  tradition 
or  document  had  been  received  by  the  Church  from  an 
apostolic  or  prophetic  source. 

Very  slowly  and  gradually  there  arose  in  the  Church 
the  notion  that,  while  the  succession  of  the  strict  prophetic 
office  had,  speaking  generally,  died  out  in  individuals,  some- 


26o  THE  CHURCH 

thing  of  a  similar  kind  had  survived  in  the  Church  as  a 
whole.  Very  gradually  this  took  definite  form  round  the 
decisions  of  the  great  councils.  Still  more  gradually  did 
this  harden  into  the  notion  of  the  infallible  authority  of 
an  QEcumenical  Council.  And  in  the  West,  so  far  as  the 
Synodical  organisation  of  the  Church  was  superseded  by 
the  Monarchical,  this  prophetic  authority  was  taken,  at  least 
by  many,  to  centre  in  the  person  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
so  that,  though  the  mediaeval  Western  Church  never  for- 
mally acknowledged  the  infallibility  of  his  solemn  decisions, 
a  doctrine  of  that  kind  had  some  currency. 

At  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  then,  we  may  say  that 
the  Western  Church  presented  itself  to  men's  minds  as 
a  highly  organised  body,  in  which  indeed  the  separate 
national  or  provincial  Churches  had  some  undefined 
liberties,  but  in  which  also  the  Church  as  a  whole  was 
supreme  and  authoritative,  the  administrative  and  judicial 
supremacy  centred  in  the  Pope,  and  the  infallible  teach- 
ing resided  either  in  the  Pope  or  in  the  universal  councils 
of  the  Church  or  in  both.  Such  was  the  full  development 
of  the  disciplinary  and  teaching  authority  of  the  Church. 
Its  judgments  were  absolute,  its  doctrine  was  infallible. 

The  theory  had  culminated  just  at  the  time  when  the 
moral  order  and  discipline  of  mediaeval  society  and  of  the 
mediaeval  Church  were  breaking  down.  The  mediaeval 
Church  had  often  suffered  from  grave  vices,  but  once  and 
again  there  had  appeared  in  it  some  new  spiritual  impulse 
which  revived  its  failing  life.  In  the  thirteenth  century, 
for  instance,  the  great  movement  of  the  Dominicans  and 
the  Franciscans  had  shaken  and  stirred  to  its  depths 
the  whole  of  the  Western  world.  But  the  revival  of  the 
Friars  was  scarcely  more  profound  than  it  was  shortlived, 
for  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  the  hold  of 
religion   and   the   Church  upon  Western  Europe  plainly 


CONDITIONS  OF  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY  261 

relaxed  with  great  rapidity.  The  Lollard  and  Hussite 
movements  were  very  complex  in  their  character,  but  at 
least  they  indicate  sufficiently  clearly  that  the  machinery 
of  the  Church  had  fallen  out  of  harmony  in  some  measure 
with  the  religious  sense  of  the  community,  and  that  the 
Church  itself  no  longer  commanded  that  respect  which  it 
had  received  in  the  past. 

If  we  may  venture  to  sum  up  the  characteristics  of  the 
Church  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  we 
should  say  that,  speaking  generally,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  once  a  living  and  growing  reality,  had  become 
abstract  and  sterile,  while  its  discipline  was  decayed. 
The  Church  was  corrupt  in  head  and  members,  in- 
capable of  interpreting  aright  its  own  more  profound 
religious  ideas  ;  and  yet  the  more  corrupt  it  grew,  the 
more  obstinately  and  arrogantly  did  it  refuse  any  conces- 
sion to  the  new  developments  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness and  to  the  growing  demand  for  its  own  reform. 

Such  were  the  circumstances  out  of  which  the  Refor- 
mation of  the  sixteenth  century  arose,  the  Reformation 
in  which  the  division  of  Christendom,  begun  when  the 
Western  and  Eastern  Churches  broke  away  from  each 
other,  was  carried  out  to  that  point  which  we  still  see  to- 
day. The  division  was  not  indeed  a  new  thing,  and  in  one 
sense  the  multiplication  of  the  divisions  brought  no  strictly 
new  phenomena  before  the  consciousness  of  the  Church, 
but  the  older  division  was  hardly  apprehended,  while  the 
modern  divisions  force  themselves  upon  the  attention  of 
every  serious  observer  of  the  religious  life. 

The  Reformation,  in  altering  the  conditions  of  Church 
life,  necessarily  brought  with  it  new  conceptions  of  the 
theory  of  the  Church.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the 
details  of  the  Reformation  movement,  but  in  order  to 
perceive  its  essential  and  characteristic  influence  upon  the 
conception  of  the  Church,  we  are  compelled  to  look  at 


262  THE  CHURCH 

some  points  in  its  history.  The  starting-point  of  the 
Reformation  is  usually  taken  to  be  the  attack  on  the 
method  of  the  indulgences  by  Luther :  this  is  a  true 
judgment,  not  only  in  the  chronological  but  in  the  philo- 
sophical sense.  For  the  dispute  about  the  indulgences 
very  rapidly  raised  the  fundamental  questions  at  issue  in 
the  Reformation.  The  important  point  in  the  dispute  about 
the  indulgences  was  the  revolt  of  the  serious  religious 
spirit  against  the  exaggeration  and  misapplication  of  the 
external  and  formal  in  the  religious  life.  It  was  at  first  a 
question  of  proportion.  Luther  did  not  deny  the  power  of 
the  Pope  to  remit  penance  which  he  and  the  Church  had 
imposed,  but  he  did  wholly  deny  the  power  of  the  Pope 
to  remit  the  general  consequences  of  sin,  or  its  guilt,  by 
the  means  of  indulgences.  In  the  main  he  protested 
against  the  use  of  exaggerated  and  false  language  about  the 
indulgences,  as  that  a  man  can  through  them  be  made 
sure  of  salvation.  It  is  quite  possible  that  some  of  Luther's 
phrases  went  beyond  the  premisses  upon  which  he  was 
consciously  arguing ;  but  in  the  main  his  contention  was 
one  for  the  internal  in  religion  as  opposed  to  the  merely 
external.  Unhappily,  the  Italian  authorities  of  the  Church 
misunderstood  the  gravity  of  the  question ;  they  did  not 
perceive  that  Luther  was  only  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
growing  sentiment  of  Christian  men,  especially  in  Northern 
Europe.  They  tried  to  silence  Luther  by  bare  authority. 
They  urged  that  the  question  at  issue  was  already  closed 
by  the  authority  of  the  Church.  The  result  was,  that 
what  in  Luther's  mind  had  at  first  been  only  a  movement 
for  reform,  became  a  movement  of  revolt.  We  may,  I 
think,  regard  the  characteristics  of  the  movement  from 
two  aspects,  the  negative  and  the  positive. 

First,  then,  as  to  the  negative  side  of  the  Reformation. 
Luther  found  himself  confronted  with  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  when  he  urged  the  reform  of  a  great 


NATURE  OF   REFORMATION  263 

moral  and  religious  abuse.  He  was  thus  driven  to  re- 
pudiate the  authority  which  confronted  him.  At  first 
no  doubt  it  was  simply  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  but 
gradually,  as  he  came  to  perceive  the  extent  to  which  the 
authority  of  the  mediaeval  Church  was  involved  in  the 
question  of  the  indulgences,  he  found  himself  obliged  to 
repudiate  the  authority  not  of  the  Pope  alone,  but  of  the 
mediaeval  Church.  And  thus  at  last  he  repudiated  the 
theory  of  the  infallible  spiritual  authority  even  of  the 
Universal  Church. 

Such  were  the  steps  through  which  Luther's  declaration 
against  the  indulgences  took  him,  and  we  can  find  them 
paralleled  and  illustrated  in  the  larger  history  of  the  time. 
Those  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  study  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg  with  any  care  will  see  easily  enough  that  its 
protest  is  directed  mainly  against  the  substitution  of  the 
formal  for  the  spiritual  in  religion,  of  conventional  works 
for  those  which  are  true  and  real,  of  pilgrimage  for  charity, 
etc.  And  exactly  the  same  phenomena  are  apparent  in 
the  religious  movement  in  England.  A  man  like  Latimer, 
who  was  never  strictly  a  theologian,  was  moved  to  revolt 
by  the  sense  of  the  external  and  conventional  character 
of  the  common  religion.  It  is  thus  easy  to  perceive  in  the 
Reformation  movement  in  general  the  process  by  which  a 
movement,  at  first  one  of  practical  reform,  became  a  revolt 
against  the  authority  of  the  Church,  as  enlisted  against 
reform.  We  find  men  driven  to  appeal  from  the  authority 
of  the  existing  Church,  and  of  the  mediaeval  Church,  to  the 
authority  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  Apostles  as  contained  in 
the  Scriptures. 

On  its  negative  side,  then,  the  Reformation  is  a  move- 
ment of  revolt  against  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  it 
was,  caused  by  the  identification  of  that  authority  with 
what  seemed,  to  men  of  a  profoundly  religious  spirit,  grave 
and  serious  abuses.     Men  revolted  against  this  authority, 


264  THE   CHURCH 

not  at  first  on  abstract,  but  on  practical  grounds,  and 
appealed  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  as 
being  the  only  ultimate  standards  of  religious  truth. 

But  the  negative  aspect  of  the  Reformation  is  only  one 
side  of  that  great  movement.  Its  positive  side  is  quite  as 
important,  and  remains  of  perpetual  significance.  The 
revolt  against  the  system  of  the  mediaeval  Church  was  a 
revolt  not  only  against  abuses  in  detail,  but  against  a  false 
conception  of  the  religious  life,  against  a  conception  which 
regarded  religion  as  law.  Over  against  this  is  set  the 
conception  that  the  foundation  of  individual  religion  is  a 
principle  of  life  within  man's  heart.  This  is  the  true 
meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith.  No 
doubt  there  grew  up  a  scholasticism  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  little  more  profitable  than  that  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  but  the  value  of  the  central  conception  itself  can- 
not well  be  denied  by  anyone  who  has  ever  understood  it. 

No  doubt  the  doctrine  of  faith,  of  the  relation  of  man 
to  God  through  faith,  had  never  been  wholly  lost  in  the 
Church.  The  immense  influence  of  St.  Augustine  in 
Western  Christendom,  mischievous  and  narrowing  as  it 
had  been  in  so  many  departments  of  theology,  had  yet 
also  tended  to  preserve  a  sense  of  the  deeper  and  pro- 
founder  side  of  the  religious  experience,  and  consequently 
of  the  conception  of  faith  in  religion.  But  though  the 
conception  had  remained  in  Christian  theology,  it  had 
been  so  overlaid  that  its  meaning  was  scarcely  appre- 
hended. It  was  the  greatest  service  that  Luther  rendered 
to  religion,  that  he  once  again  brought  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Paul  and  St.  John  to  its  true  place  in  the  consciousness 
of  Christian  men.  From  his  own  profound  religious  ex- 
perience he  had  learned  that  true  peace  of  soul,  the  liberty 
of  the  religious  life,  can  only  be  obtained  when  the  soul 
of  man  is  brought  into  a  true  relation  with  God,  and  that 
the  only  means  of  this  is  faith. 


r 


DOCTRINE   OF   FAITH  265 


Luther  was  laying  over  again  the  foundations  of  the 
conception  of  freedom  in  religion,  of  spontaneity,  of  life, 
as  contrasted  with  mere  law.  He  has,  of  course,  often 
been  accused  of  having  fostered  an  Antinomian  spirit  in 
religion,  just  as  St.  Paul  was  by  some  of  his  Judaising 
contemporaries.  And  I  should  not  wish  to  say  that 
Luther  never  used  unwise  or  even  foolish  language  in  the 
stress  of  the  great  controversy.  But  if  any  man  will  be 
at  the  pains  to  read  his  little  treatise  on  The  Liberty  of  the 
Christian  Man  he  will  see  that  Luther,  just  as  clearly  as 
St.  Paul,  saw  that  true  liberty  was  also  true  service. 

There  has  been  much  dispute  about  the  meaning  of 
faith,  and  it  may  very  well  be  admitted  that  faith  is 
something  very  undefinable,  very  difficult  to  explain  in 
set  terms.  But  it  will,  I  think,  be  sufficiently  clear  to 
anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  reflect,  that  faith 
is  in  religion  something  of  the  same  nature  as  imagination 
in  art,  the  faculty  by  which  a  man  sees  the  truth,  not 
merely  as  it  is  superficially  or  externally,  but  as  it  is 
really,  the  means  by  which,  conversely,  the  man  is 
possessed  by  that  which  he  sees.  It  is  the  method  of 
the  free  religious  life,  for  it  is  by  this  that  a  man's  heart 
is  turned  to  love  and  to  obedience,  by  this  that  a  man  is 
constrained  to  a  service  which  is  free  because  it  is  the 
servitude  of  love. 

Luther's  great  apprehension  of  the  New  Testament 
doctrine  did  profoundly  alter  the  character  of  the  religious 
conceptions  of  Europe.  In  terms  it  was  no  doubt  rejected 
by  the  Council  of  Trent,  but  no  one  who  has  studied 
the  ambiguous,  uncertain  character  of  the  statements 
which  the  Council  of  Trent  put  forward  about  faith, 
can  fail  to  see  that  however  anxious  some  divines  might 
be  to  repudiate  the  position  of  Luther,  his  work  had 
in  large  measure  been  done.  The  truth  is  no  doubt  that, 
just  as  in  art  people  may  continue  to  dispute  about  the 


266  THE   CHURCH 

relative  importance  of  law  and  liberty,  while  all  the  time 
the  instinct  of  the  true  artist  looks  upon  the  two  as 
forming  one  unity,  so  it  is  also  in  religion. 

It  is  mainly  to  the  Germans,  to  Lessing  and  Goethe, 
that  we  owe  the  recovery  of  the  principle  of  freedom  in 
art,  and  this  is  not  unrelated  to  the  fact  that  the  principle 
of  freedom  and  spontaneity  in  religion  had  been  first  re- 
covered and  restated  by  Luther  in  Germany. 

What  has  been  the  influence  exercised  by  the  Reform- 
ation on  the  conception  and  condition  of  the  Church? 
As  we  understand  it,  the  Reformation  was  the  inevitable 
result  of  the  corruption  of  a  society  which  looked  upon 
its  authority  as  absolute  and  its  doctrine  as  infallible. 
The  religious  life  of  Northern  Europe  had  outgrown  the 
forms  and  methods  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  men 
broke  away  from  an  authority  which,  as  it  seemed  to  them, 
stood  in  the  way  of  reform.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that, 
when  it  was  too  late,  the  Latin  Church  took  in  hand 
the  task  of  partial  reform,  and  purged  itself  of  some  of 
those  elements  which  had  first  caused  the  revolt.  But  it 
still  insisted  on  implicit  obedience  and  submission,  and 
Christian  men  were  not  prepared  to  submit  their  necks 
once  again  to  the  yoke  of  bondage ;  they  felt  that  the 
right  to  make  such  claims  had  been  forfeited.  And  when 
they  looked  back  over  the  history  of  the  Church  in  its 
earlier  ages,  they  perceived  that  such  a  claim  as  that  made 
by  the  Latin  Church  had  no  justification,  that  the  authority 
of  the  Roman  See  was  only  the  outgrowth  of  conditions 
which  had  once  been  real  and  important,  but  which  had 
long  since  passed  away.  The  repudiation  of  the  supremacy 
of  Rome  and  of  the  absolute  authority  of  the  mediaeval 
Church  was  a  necessary  condition  of  the  Reformation. 

We  find,  then,  that  the  Reformed  Churches  are  all 
agreed  in  repudiating  the  conception  that  the  universal 


REFORMED   CHURCHES  267 

Church  has  or  can  have  any  absolute  or  infallible  authority 
in  religious  matters.  Our  own  Church  expresses  this  very 
clearly  in  its  statement  on  the  subject  of  General  Councils  : 
"General  Councils  may  not  be  gathered  together  without 
the  authority  of  Princes.  And  when  they  be  gathered 
together  (forasmuch  as  they  be  an  assembly  of  men, 
whereof  all  be  not  governed  with  the  spirit  and  word  of 
God),  they  may  err,  and  sometimes  have  erred,  even  in 
things  pertaining  to  God.  Wherefore  things  ordained  by 
them  as  necessary  to  salvation  have  neither  strength  nor 
authority,  unless  it  may  be  declared  that  they  be  taken 
out  of  Holy  Scripture  "  (Art.  xxi.). 

This  is  indeed  the  foundation  of  the  position  of  the 
Reformed  Churches.  It  is  in  virtue  of  this  that  we  claim 
the  right  to  re-examine  and  test  the  truth  and  value  of 
doctrines  or  customs  which  have  grown  up  round  the 
Christian  faith.  Such  questions  cannot  be  taken  as  closed 
by  invoking  the  authority  of  the  Church.  The  Church 
must  justify  itself  by  its  conformity  with  the  norm  of  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord. 

It  is  no  doubt  true  that  this  repudiation  of  the  absolute 
authority  of  the  mediaeval  Church,  this  interruption  in  the 
continuity  of  the  development  of  the  Christian  society, 
has  had  its  own  lamentable  consequences.  The  reaction 
against  an  exaggerated  authority  was  so  great  that  it  has 
been  often  difficult  to  preserve  the  sense  of  authority  in 
the  religious  societies.  To  this  cause  in  part  we  may  very 
well  trace  our  deplorable  divisions. 

There  is  no  Christian  man  who  does  not  lament  these 
unhappy  divisions,  who  does  not  in  some  measure  feel  the 
terrible  contrast  between  the  ideal  unity  of  the  Church, 
of  the  one  body  of  Christ,  and  the  actual  condition  of 
Christendom.  The  East  is  separate  from  the  West,  and 
the  West  itself  is  rent  and  torn.  We  must  feel  that  this 
condition  of  things  is  the  result  of  great  fault  and  sins  in 


268  THE  CHURCH 

the  past,  and  that  the  Christian  man  who  does  not  strive 
with  all  his  heart  and  might  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom 
incurs  a  terrible  responsibility.  We  cannot  stand  idle  while 
those  who  are  brothers  in  Christ  are  separated  from  each 
other,  while  the  work  of  the  Christian  Church  is  hampered 
and  thwarted  by  our  divisions.  For  it  is  unhappily  only 
too  true  that  the  divisions  of  Christendom  are  not  only  in 
themselves  deplorable,  but  that  they  do  constantly  and 
disastrously  hinder  the  work  of  God  in  the  world.  Where 
there  should  be  mutual  sympathy  and  co-operation,  we 
find  only  too  often  jealousy,  rancour,  and  strife. 

There  may  have  been  a  time  when  Christian  men 
accepted  the  fact  of  these  divisions  as  inevitable,  and 
thought  little  of  unnecessary  separation.  This  is  happily 
not  the  tendency  of  our  time,  but  rather  we  can  see  on 
every  hand  the  signs  of  a  growing  and  deepening  feeling 
for  the  necessity  of  reunion. 

And  we  also,  in  our  own  time,  have  learned  much  of  the 
importance  of  the  continuity  of  life  and  order  in  the 
religious  as  well  as  in  the  secular  society ;  we  have  learned 
that  every  violent  break  with  the  past,  even  when  inevit- 
able, tends  to  maim  and  narrow  the  life  of  society.  It  is 
not  so  long  ago  since  we  in  the  reformed  countries,  and 
not  least  in  England,  were  anxious  only  to  repudiate  the 
mistakes  and  conceptions  of  the  past;  now  we  are  all 
anxious  to  show  that  we  too  are  the  true  heirs  of  the  past. 

In  the  height  of  the  great  reaction  against  the  corrup- 
tions and  the  despotism  of  the  mediaeval  Church  it  was 
natural  enough  that  the  importance  of  the  continuity  and 
unity  of  the  religious  life  should  have  been  in  some 
measure  forgotten.  Nowadays,  while  we  think  that  the 
great  revolt  was  justifiable,  because  it  was  necessary,  we 
all  recognise  that  it  has  had  many  melancholy  conse- 
quences. It  is  not  now  of  very  much  use  to  try  to 
apportion  the  blame  among  those  who  may  seem  to  have 


I 


OUR   PRESENT   CONDITION  269 

been  the  direct  causes  of  our  divisions,  but,  whoever  they 
are,  their  responsibility  is  a  heavy  one. 

We  do  not  look  upon  the  tradition  of  the  past  as  a 
burden  and  weight  which  we  only  want  to  shake  off; 
rather  we  recognise  the  fulness  and  the  beauty  of  the 
religious  temper  of  past  ages,  but  we  have  got  rid  of  the 
dead  hand ;  we  do  not  allow  the  freedom  of  the  life  of 
man  in  God  to  be  smothered  in  the  formulas  and  traditions 
of  the  past. 

The  life  of  man  cannot  be  conceived  of  as  being  ordered 
upon  any  mechanical  principle ;  the  life  of  man  is  con- 
tinuous, but  the  forms  and  methods  of  life  change  from 
age  to  age.  We  are  the  same  in  our  fundamental  nature 
as  the  men  to  whom  the  Christian  revelation  came;  we 
tend  towards  the  same  end,  but  also  we  are  different.  And 
the  change  will  express  itself  in  the  different  forms  and 
methods  of  life.  It  is  natural  that  some  men  should  feel 
uneasy  in  the  perpetual  flux  and  movement  of  life  ;  to 
them  that  which  has  been  and  is  is  perfectly  satisfying. 
This  temper  is  as  natural  as  it  is  common.  But  after  all 
it  is  surely  not  the  truest  temper ;  this  is  surely  not  the 
true  way  in  which  we  should  look  out  upon  the  great 
spectacle  of  the  movement  and  progress  of  the  world ;  nor 
is  this  the  right  temper  in  which  we  should  set  out  to  deal 
with  the  actual  problems  of  life  and  religion.  We  recognise 
that  the  past  had  its  good,  but  its  good  was  not  the  same 
exactly  as  ours. 

And  therefore,  though  we  lament  (who  does  not  ?)  the 
divisions  and  perplexities  of  our  time,  though  we  feel  that 
the  condition  of  the  Christian  Church  is  not  that  which  it 
should  be,  we  should  surely  try  to  do  what  we  can  under 
our  present  conditions,  while  we  also  try  to  remedy  them, 
rather  than  stand  on  one  side  in  a  fruitless  and  unavailing 
anger  or  sorrow.  For  the  Spirit  of  God  still  calls  men  to 
one  life,  the  souls  of  men  are  still  united  in  Christ,  and 
the  prayers  of  men  still  go  up  to  the  one  Father. 


VII. 

THE   SACRAMENTS 

By  W.  R.  INGE 

The  forms  in  which  the  religious  consciousness  finds  expression  are 

necessarily  determined  by  the  needs  of  those  who  use  them    .         .271 

Rudimentary  sacraments"  are  found  in  the  most  primitive  religions  in 
connexion  with  sacrifices.  The  ideas  which  they  express  are:  (i)  the 
establishment  of  bonds  of  guest-friendship  with  the  tribal  god  ; 
(2)  acquisition  of  divine  qualities  by  sacramentally  eating  the  gifts 
of  the  god  or  the  flesh  of  his  totem-animal ;  (3)  atonement  for  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  the  totem -animal,  which  represents  both  the  god 
and  his  worshippers       .  .  .  ...     273 

The  true  idea  of  sacrifice  is  realised  when  priest,  victim,  deity,  and 

worshippers  are  made  one  .  .  ...     275 

Sacraments  of  brotherhood.     The  Greek  mysteries  are  here  of  great 

historical  importance     ,  .  .  .  .         .      id. 

The  boon  offered  in  these  mysteries  was  immortality  or  deification         .     276 

The  ceremonies  fall  under  two  heads:  (i)  initiation,  (2)  membership. 
The  sacrament  of  admission  consisted  chiefly  of  ceremonial  wash- 
ing, the  sacrament  of  membership  of  a  common  meal  .         .     277 

The  Christian  sacraments  are  thus  the  simplest  and  most  universal  of  all 
sacramental  rites.  Christ's  method  was  to  use  the  old  whenever  He 
could  .  .  .  .  ...     279 

Why,  then,  did  He  not  attempt  to  utilise  the  existing  religious  cuKus  of 

His  own  nation  ?  .  .  .  ...     280 

The  elements  in  the  Jewish  sacrificial  worship  which   He  wished  to 

exclude  were  :  (i)  bloody  sacrifices,  (2)  sacerdotalism  .         .     283 

Among  the  accretions  which  gathered  round  our  Lord's  institutions  :— 

The  fusion  of  the  old  "oblation"  with  the  sacramental  meal  was  a 

legitimate  and  beneficial  development  .  ...     285 

The  influence  of  the  Greek  mysteriosophy,  which  the  converted  pagans 

brought  with  them  into  the  Church,  was  partly  good  and  partly  bad    287 

The  imported  ideas  were:  (i)  symbolism,  the  sacraments  as  mystical 
symbols  of  transcendental  truths ;  (2)  secrecy  ;  (3)  sacerdotalism, 
accompanied  by  materialisation  of  the  doctrines  of  sacramental 
grace ;  transubstantiation,  however,  was  long  held  in  check  by 
Platonism  ;  (4)  ritualism  and  spectacular  worship ;  (5)  the  idea  of 
the  sacraments  as  "  the  medicine  of  immortality "       .  .         .     288 

270 


RELIGIOUS   CONSCIOUSNESS  271 

Page 

Can  we  separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff  in  these  accretions  ?  .  .  295 
Symbolism,  in  reUgion,  is  not  only  milk  for  babes,  but  is  a  normal  and 

healthy  instinct.  The  attempt  to  dispense  with  symbols  is  a  mistake  id. 
It  is  possible  to  hold  that  the  sacraments  are  real  vehicles  of  grace 

without  falling  into  superstition     .  .  ...     297 

The  connexion  of  the  outward  with  the  inward  is  an  insoluble  mystery ; 

the  question  of  causation  had  better  be  set  aside  .  .         .      id. 

The  mysticism  of  St.  John   and   the   Platonists,  on   which  the   true 

Catholic  sacramental  doctrine  is  based,  is  not  discredited  by  the 

superstitions  which  have  arisen  in  connexion  with  it    .  .         .     299 

But  moral  difficulties  are  felt  in  accepting  the  doctrine  of  special  channels 

of  grace,  of  which  all  cannot  avail  themselves  .  .         .     300 

Certainly  we  must  not  make  God  the  upholder  of  unjust  privilege  .      id. 

Nor  is  it  our  business  to  decide  who  is,  or  is  not,  outside  the  "  covenant 

of  grace "       .  .  .  .  ...     301 

Schism,  as  a  last  resort,  might  conceivably  be  a  duty  .  ,         .      id. 

And  though  we  cannot  view  without  regret  the  secessions  from  our 

branch  of  the  Church,  we  must  remember  that  there  are  degrees  of 

separation,  and  that  it  is  only  the  spirit  of  dissidence  which  we  can 

condemn  unreservedly   .  .  .  ...     302 

Is  the  celebrant  in  the  Eucharist  in  any  sense  "  a  sacrificing  priest  **  ?  .  303 
He  is  the  representative  of  the  priestly  congregation,  but  not,  strictly 

speaking,  the  "organ"  by  which  the  Body  communicates  with  its 

Head.     The  dignity  of  the  priestly  calling  is  prophetic  rather  than 

sacerdotal       .  .  .  .  .  .         .      id. 

We  must  try  to  fix  the  best  interpretation  of  the  words  Priest  and 

Sacrifice,  rejecting  their  less  worthy  associations  .  .         .     305 

In  the  Eucharist  it  is  an  eternal  act  that  we  represent,  not  a  temporal 

act  that  we  repeat,  or  continue     .  .  ...     306 

The  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  real,  but  the  real  is  that 

which  is  present  to  the  healthy  consciousness  of  a  Person,  not  that 

which  has  a  local  habitation  .  .  .  .         .      id. 

Naive  materialistic  assumptions  are  at  the  bottom  of  many  difficulties 

and  disputes  about  the  Eucharist  .  .  ...     307 

The  Presence  of  Christ  is  real,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  bears  us  witness 

that  it  is  so     .  .  .  .  ,  .         .     308 

It  is  a  fact  of  experience  that  we  do  realise  His  presence  and  our  union 

with  Him  by  means  of  this  sacrament  .  ...      id. 

The  great  sacraments  are  intended  to  teach  us  that  all  life  is,  in  various 

degrees,  sacred  and  sacramental    .  .  ...     309 

In  particular,  the  Eucharist  should  help  us  to  realise  the  deep  mystery 

of  our  relation  to  our  fellow-men,  which  perfect  love  alone  can 

solve  .  .  .  .  ,  .         .      id, 

IF  we  wish  to  understand  any  one  of  the  great  factors 
which  together  constitute  the  organic  Hfe  of  civilisa- 
tion, we  must  consider  it  not  only  in  its  highest,  nor  only 
in  its  lowest  forms.     The  true  nature  of  an  institution  is 


272  THE  SACRAMENTS 

to  be  sought  neither  by  going  back  to  the  conditions 
under  which  its  earliest  beginnings  can  be  traced,  nor 
by  postulating  the  imaginary  conditions  under  which  its 
idea  might  be  most  perfectly  realised.  Institutions  are 
for  men,  not  for  angels  or  for  beasts.  They  can  only 
operate  in  subjection  to  the  moral,  intellectual,  and  physical 
limitations  of  human  society — limitations  which  are  not 
the  same  at  all  times  or  places,  nor  in  all  social  strata 
at  the  same  time  and  place.  They  justify  their  existence 
by  satisfying  the  requirements  of  those  who  use  them,  and 
the  validity  of  the  particular  forms  which  they  assume 
must  always  be  considered  in  relation  to  the  needs  of  the 
community  in  which  they  exist. 

It  is  from  this  standpoint  that  I  wish  to  consider  the 
subject  of  the  Christian  Sacraments,  which  have  played, 
and  are  still  destined  to  play,  a  most  important  part  in  the 
spiritual  development  of  the  human  race.  And  I  think  it 
necessary,  by  way  of  preface,  to  trace  briefly  the  evolution 
of  the  sacramental  idea  from  its  first  beginnings  in  the 
dim  dawn  of  human  intelligence.  I  hope  that  the  time  is 
come  when  a  Christian  writer  may  do  this  without  giving 
offence.  I  hope  that  the  intelligent  reader  will  not  be 
shocked  to  find  very  close  and  striking  analogies  between 
the  two  great  Sacraments  of  our  Church  and  similar  in- 
stitutions beyond  the  Christian  pale.  I  hope  that  his 
pride  will  not  be  wounded  when  he  is  shown  rudimentary 
sacraments  even  among  primitive  and  savage  races.  The 
Word  of  God,  by  whom  the  worlds  were  made,  has  never 
left  Himself  without  witness ;  there  is  no  race  of  mankind, 
however  barbarous,  to  whom  He  has  not  spoken.  All  who 
have  turned  to  Him,  however  ignorantly,  have  eaten  of 
the  same  spiritual  meat  and  drunk  of  the  same  spiritual 
drink  ;  they  have  received  what  they  were  able  to  receive ; 
even  as  we,  who  know  a  little  more  than  they,  receive  what 


RUDIMENTARY  SACRAMENTS  273 

we  are  able  to  receive,  and  store  in  earthen  vessels  our  few 
grains  of  the  divine  wisdom. 

The  most  primitive  form  of  sacrament  arises  from  a 
wish  to  establish  friendly  relations  with  the  tribal  god 
by  offering  him  hospitality.  The  food  set  apart  for  the 
deity  is  in  this  case  not  a  sacrifice  of  expiation :  the  object 
of  the  rite  is  simply  to  make  the  god  and  his  worshippers 
commensals  and  guest-friends.  But  another  idea  soon 
enters  the  mind  of  the  primitive  worshipper.  His  god 
is  often  the  god  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth ;  and  so  in 
the  sacramental  meal  the  tribe  feasts  upon  the  gifts  of  the 
god,  and  even,  in  a  sense,  upon  the  god  himself.  This 
aspect  of  the  rite  is  accentuated  by  the  belief,  which  is 
common  to  all  primitive  peoples,  that  by  eating  anything 
we  assimilate  its  qualities.  Thus  in  many  parts  of  the 
world  the  savage  will  not  eat  venison,  lest  it  should  make 
him  cowardly ;  and  we  have  stories  from  Corea  and  other 
places,  of  natives  eating  the  tiger  and  other  carnivorous 
animals,  to  increase  their  courage  and  fierceness.  The 
principle  of  substitution  or  representation,  which  is  almost 
universally  accepted  in  early  religion,  makes  the  idea  of  a 
symbolical  eating  of  the  god,  in  order  to  acquire  his 
virtues  or  power,  quite  natural  to  the  savage ;  and  a  deeper 
significance  is  given  to  the  rite  by  the  curious  superstition 
called  totemism.  The  totem  is  generally  an  animal,  which 
is  believed  to  be  akin  both  to  the  god  and  his  worshippers, 
and  which,  therefore,  is  far  too  sacred  to  be  killed  and 
eaten  on  any  ordinary  occasion,  or  even  in  a  honorific 
sacrifice.  But  when  the  sacrifice  is  an  atonement  for  sin, 
the  totem-animal  may  be,  and  generally  is,  the  victim. 
The  god  demands  the  shedding  of  life-blood  to  expiate 
the  tribe's  offence,  but  accepts  the  animal  as  a  substitute 
for  the  guilty  human  beings.  In  so  accepting  it  he  in 
a  sense  himself  dies  for  the  sins  of  his  people,  for  the 
totem-animal  is  his  representative  as  well  as  theirs.     Orig- 

T 


274  THE  SACRAMENTS 

inally,  we  may  conjecture,  the  two  kinds  of  sacrifice,  hon- 
orific and  piacular,  were  distinct,  and  no  sacramental  meal 
followed  the  sacrifice  of  the  totem-animal.  But  the  oppor- 
tunity offered  by  the  sacrifice  to  assimilate  the  qualities 
of  the  slain  god  soon  led  to  the  custom  of  reverently 
partaking  of  the  flesh  of  the  totem-animal.  The  rite  is  one 
of  awful  solemnity ;  for  the  flesh  of  this  animal  is  in  the 
highest  degree  taboo,  and  to  touch  it  under  any  other  cir- 
cumstances would  be  shocking  sacrilege.  A  good  example 
of  this  rite  is  furnished  by  the  Athenian  festival  of  the 
Diipolia,  which,  like  some  other  Athenian  ceremonies,  was  a 
survival  of  very  primitive  religious  ideas.  The  slaughter  of 
the  sacred  bull  at  this  feast  was  regarded  as  a  dreadful 
murder,  but  the  priests  taught  that  "the  dead  was  raised 
again  in  the  same  sacrifice,"  its  life  being  renewed  in  those 
who  partook  of  it.  In  consequence  of  the  tremendous 
import  of  the  totem-sacrifice,  the  most  stringent  precau- 
tions are  taken  to  prevent  any  profanation  of  the  sacred 
body,  which  is  still  capable  of  conveying  deadly  taboo- 
contagion.  Among  the  Mongols  and  Red  Indians,  and 
(as  Pausanias  tells  us)  among  the  Arcadians  and  Locrians, 
it  was  sacrilege  to  leave  any  part  of  the  victim  unconsumed. 
The  hoofs,  bones,  and  entrails  are  generally  burnt,  the 
whole  of  the  flesh  is  eaten.  Again,  the  whole  tribe  must 
partake ;  this  is  insisted  upon  in  North  and  South  America, 
and  by  many  African  peoples.  The  meaning  of  this  pro- 
vision I  will  explain  presently.  Fasting  and  other  modes 
of  purification  generally  precede  the  sacrifice.  In  some 
cases,  where  the  deity  is  a  corn-god  or  goddess,  the  com- 
municants partake  of  bread,  which  they  call  the  flesh  of 
the  god,  in  others,  of  wine,  which  is  regarded  as  the  blood 
of  the  wine-god.  The  Mexicans  ate  sacramentally  a 
dough  image  of  their  war-god  Huitzilopotchli.  They 
received  the  bread,  we  are  told,  "with  tears,  fear,  and 
reverence,  saying  that  they  did  eat  the  flesh  and  bones 


OBLATION   AND   ATONEMENT  275 

of  God,  wherewith  they  were  grieved.  Such  as  had  any 
sick  folks  demanded  thereof  for  them,  and  carried  it  with 
great  reverence  and  veneration."  1  This  close  connexion 
between  the  oblation  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth  and  the 
symbolic  eating  of  the  god  marks  the  fusion  of  honorific 
and  piacular  sacrifice.  As  a  stage  in  the  purification  of  the 
sacrificial  idea  it  is  of  great  importance,  for  the  conceptions 
both  of  honorific  and  of  piacular  sacrifice  are  transformed 
by  it.  The  process  of  thought  may  be  traced  as  follows. 
The  earliest  notion  is,  that  God  is  a  jealous  God,  who 
requires  honours  and  presents,  like  an  earthly  potentate. 
Later,  men  come  to  realise  that  it  is  of  His  own  that  we 
give  to  Him  ;  that  it  is  Himself  that  we  lay  before  Him ; 
that  it  is  Himself  that  He  gives  to  us  in  return.  The 
oblation  is  only  the  preliminary  to  communion.  Or  again, 
the  primitive  notion  is,  that  God  is  angry  with  us,  and  will 
have  our  blood.  Then  follows  the  conviction  that  He  will 
take  a  substitute,  and  lastly,  that  He  will  give  Himself  as 
a  substitute.  Thus  the  piacular  sacrifice  is  transmuted  into 
the  sacrament  of  an  atonement,  in  which  the  priest,  the 
victim,  the  deity,  and  the  worshippers  are  all  made  one. 
Herein  lies  the  perfect  realisation  of  the  idea  of  sacrifice. 

In  order  to  make  this  unification  complete,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  covenant  sacrifice,  which  was  not 
quite  the  same  as  the  thank-offering  or  peace-offering, 
should  be  included  in  the  sacrament.  This  was  readily 
accomplished ;  for  in  primitive  religion  these  rites  are 
generally  almost  as  much  sacraments  of  brotherhood 
between  members  of  the  tribe  as  of  union  or  friendship 
with  the  deity.  It  was  deemed  that  by  mixing  or 
tasting  each  other's  blood,  or  by  sharing  the  blood  of 
the  totem-animal,  a  close  and  sacred  relation  of  brother- 
hood was  established ;  and  this  is  why  every  member 
of  the  tribe  was  obliged  to  join  in  the  ceremony.      In 

^  ACOSTA,  Natural  and  Moral  History  of  the  Indies^  vol.  ii.  pp.  356-360. 


276  THE  SACRAMENTS 

primitive  societies  the  religious  body  is  naturally  the 
tribe,  but  in  more  civilised  states  we  generally  find, 
besides  the  official  cultus,  voluntary  associations  for 
religious  purposes.  In  Greece  and  her  colonies  these 
associations  first  appear  about  the  seventh  century  B.C. 
The  Eleusinian  mysteries  are  only  the  most  famous  of 
a  large  number  of  religious  brotherhoods  which  from  this 
time  began  to  spread  all  over  the  Greek  world.  Owing 
to  the  reserve  and  even  secrecy  which  it  was  obligatory 
to  maintain  about  these  ceremonies,  the  notices  of  them 
in  literature  are  very  scanty  in  proportion  to  their  influence 
and  importance;  but  what  we  know  is  sufficient  to  throw 
much  light  on  the  nature  of  sacramental  religion  generally, 
and  on  its  development,  under  Greek  influences,  in  the 
Christian  Church.  It  is  a  real  misfortune  that  so  many 
persons  have  written  on  the  Christian  sacraments  in  the 
first  centuries  of  our  era  without  any  knowledge  of  the 
contemporary  pagan  culture  to  which  the  Church  was 
so  greatly  indebted.  The  subject  is  of  such  great  im- 
portance to  all  who  are  interested  in  church  history 
that  I  propose  to  devote  one  or  two  pages  to  a  brief  con- 
sideration of  it. 

If  it  is  asked,  What  was  the  main  inducement  held 
out  in  the  Greek  mysteries?  we  may  answer  confidently 
that  it  was  happiness  in  a  future  state.  Plutarch  quotes 
Sophocles  as  saying — 

"  Thrice  happy  they  who  while  they  dwell  on  earth 
Have  gazed  upon  these  holy  mysteries  ; 
For  theirs  alone  is  life  beyond  the  grave, 
Where  others  find  but  woe  and  misery," 

And  Plato  tells  us  that  the  priests  of  the  mysteries 
taught  that  those  who  had  been  purified  and  initiated 
will  dwell  with  the  gods  after  their  death,  while  the  rest 
of  mankind  will  be  plunged  in  a  kind  of  slough  of 
despond.     The  gift  of  immortality  was  perhaps  typified 


THE   GREEK   MYSTERIES      \c,277 

at  Eleusis  by  an  ear  of  corn,  as  in  St.  Paul's  well-known 
simile.  But  the  Greek  mysteries  never  taught  the  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh.  They  conceived  of  immortality  as 
a  participation  in  the  life  of  the  gods,  whose  chief  pre- 
rogative was  immunity  from  decay  and  death.  The 
mysteries  were  believed  to  confer  this  boon ;  and,  as 
might  have  been  expected,  the  belief  was  held  both  in 
a  crude  and  in  a  refined  form.  The  more  elevated 
doctrine  was  that  by  the  purifying  influence  of  this 
worship  the  human  spirit  underwent  a  progressive  deifica- 
tion. Salvation  was  regarded  as  a  change  of  inner 
condition,  an  advance  towards  perfection  which  was 
already  begun.  The  sacrament  was  valued  mainly  as 
bringing  the  worshipper  into  the  immediate  presence  of 
God.  So  Plutarch  says,  "  It  is  not  the  wine  nor  the 
meat  that  refreshes  us  in  these  feasts,  but  good  hope, 
and  faith  that  God  is  present  with  us,  that  He  accepts 
our  service,  and  is  well  pleased  with  it."  The  cruder 
form  was  the  unethical  belief  that  salvation  is  conferred 
ex  opere  operato  by  the  sacrament  of  initiation. 

The  ceremonies  connected  with  these  associations 
naturally  fall  under  two  heads — those  of  initiation  and 
those  of  membership.  As  the  mystery  -  worship  had 
its  origin  to  a  large  extent  in  the  consciousness  of  sin, 
we  may  expect  to  find  that  purgation  and  release  from 
guilt  formed  the  most  important  part  in  the  rite  of 
admission.  Nor  can  we  be  surprised,  since  we  are  dealing 
with  the  most  tenaciously  conservative  of  all  human 
instincts,  to  find  that,  together  with  the  moral  sense 
of  uncleanness  in  the  sight  of  God,  were  mingled  many 
relics  of  primitive  superstition,  according  to  which  men 
contract  impurity  by  external  contact  with  things  "  un- 
clean" or  taboo.  From  both  these  kinds  of  defilement 
cleansing  was  sought  sacramentally.  The  "elements" 
in  the  purgative  sacrament  were  naturally  those  used  in 


278  THE   SACRAMENTS 

cleansing — first  and  foremost,  water;  but  also  fire  and 
steam,  sulphur,  loam,  and  clay,  and  in  some  cases  the 
blood  of  a  sacrificed  victim.  This  last,  however,  seems 
properly  to  belong  to  the  covenant  sacrifice.  The  word 
"  regeneration  **  was  used  of  the  state  inaugurated  by 
baptism,  both  in  the  Greek  mysteries  and  by  the  Jews 
who  baptised  proselytes.^  Among  the  Greeks  initiation 
of  infants  was  by  no  means  uncommon,  as  is  proved  by 
numerous  inscriptions,  in  which  children  of  seven  years 
old  or  less  are  described  as  "priests"  in  the  mysteries 
of  Dionysus  and  other  deities.  "Trine  immersion"  was 
a  familiar  form  of  lustration  in  paganism,  as  we  know 
from  Virgil,  Ovid,  and  Juvenal.  As  to  the  moral  effect 
of  this  ceremonial  washing,  we  find,  as  we  might  expect, 
the  same  conflict  of  opinion  as  has  been  mentioned  in 
the  case  of  the  sacramental  meal,  and  as  appeared  later 
in  the  Christian  Church.  While  the  priests  and  others 
connected  with  the  mysteries  naturally  extolled  the 
virtues  of  the  sacrament  in  and  by  itself,  others  protested 
against  ascribing  to  it  any  such  miraculous  potency,  and 
appealed  both  to  experience  and  to  the  moral  sense  on  the 
other  side.  Diogenes  is  said  to  have  asked  whether  the 
robber  Pataecion  was  better  off  in  the  other  world  than 
the  hero  Epaminondas,  because  the  former  had  been 
initiated,  and  the  latter  not.  And  Ovid,  rightly  tracing 
the  ex  opere  operato  theory  to  a  Greek  source,  exclaims — 

"  Graecia  principium  moris  fuit ;  ilia  nocentes 
Impia  lustratos  ponere  facta  putat. 
A  !  nimium  faciles,  qui  tristia  crimina  caedis 
Fluminea  tolli  posse  putetis  aqua  ! "  ^ 

The  ceremonies  of  membership  consisted  mainly  of  the 
sacramental  meal,  which  has  already  been  in  part  discussed. 

^  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  proselytes  were' baptised  before  John  the 
Baptist,  and  that  the  rite  was  intended  to  symbolise  or  effect  the  cleansing  of 
the  neophyte  from  the  pollutions  of  his  former  life. 

*  Ovid,  Fasti^  ii.  35. 


THE   GREEK   MYSTERIES  279 

Such  meals  were  a  regular  institution  in  some  of  the  "associa- 
tions for  the  sake  of  sacrifice  "  (Olaa-oi  Ovcrlag  eveKo) — brother- 
hoods of  persons  engaged  in  the  same  trade,  who  therefore 
wished  to  worship  the  same  tutelary  deity.  But  these 
"covenant-sacrifices"  were  perhaps  more  fully  developed 
in  other  races  (of  whose  ceremonies  some  account  has 
already  been  given)  and  in  the  Jewish  ritual.  We  may 
compare  especially  the  description  given  in  Exodus  xxiv.  8, 
a  passage  which  I  think  has  a  closer  connexion  with  the 
institution  of  the  Eucharist  than  has  been  generally 
recognised.  We  read  there  that  half  of  the  sacrificial 
blood  was  sprinkled  on  the  people,  the  object  being  not  to 
expiate  their  sin,  but  to  bring  them  into  relation  with  the 
sacrifice  and  renew  the  covenant  with  God. 

The  examples  which  I  have  given  will  be  enough  to 
show  that  both  the  idea  of  sacramental  worship  and  the 
forms  under  which  it  is  performed  by  the  Christian  Church 
are  the  almost  universal  heritage  of  mankind.  The 
symbolic  uses  of  washing  and  eating  are  the  most  natural, 
the  simplest,  and  the  most  widely  diffused  of  all  such 
ceremonies.  So  natural  are  they  that  we  may  say  with 
some  confidence  that  if  Christ  had  not  instituted  Baptism 
and  the  Eucharist  the  Church  would  have  had  to  invent 
them.  A  Christianity  without  sacraments  could  never 
have  converted  Europe.  In  fact,  the  two  great  Sacraments 
were  almost  the  only  Christian  rites  which  answered  to 
the  ancient  idea  of  religion  as  cultus — as  the  performance 
of  some  prescribed  form  of  service  to  the  Deity.  But  it 
does  not  follow  that  all  the  ideas  which  have  gathered 
round  these  rites  are  of  equal  value,  or  that  Christ  in 
instituting  the  Sacraments  meant  to  enjoin  or  tolerate  them 
all.  There  is,  as  I  hope  to  show,  the  strongest  reason 
for  thinking  that  He  did  not.  But  He  chose  the  two 
simplest,  most  universal,  and  most  easily  understood  of 
all   such   ceremonies,  because  it  was  necessary  that  the 


28o  THE  SACRAMENTS 

Christian  worship  should  be  of  a  kind  which  might  give  as 
much  comfort  and  help  to  the  unlearned  and  ignorant 
as  to  the  philosopher,  to  the  Gentile  as  to  the  Jew. 

All  the  records  of  our  Lord's  life  and  teaching  show 
that  it  was  part  of  His  method  to  use  the  old  whenever 
He  could.  Even  in  His  discourses  a  large  number  of  His 
maxims  had  been  uttered  before  by  the  Rabbis.  Whatever 
He  took  He  made  His  own ;  the  new  spirit  was  able  to 
assimilate  and  transmute  the  old  without  danger.  But 
there  is  one  striking  exception.  Our  Lord  did  not  attempt 
to  utilise  the  existing  religious  cultus  of  His  own  nation. 
He  did  not  enjoin  circumcision.  He  never  connected  the 
new  covenant,  which  He  came  to  proclaim  and  to  seal, 
with  the  Jewish  sacrifices  and  priesthood.  And  though 
He  Himself  and  His  disciples,  who  had  been  born  under 
the  old  dispensation,  conformed  and  were  "  obedient  to  the 
law,"  He  declared  emphatically  that  the  law  and  the 
prophets  "  were  until  John,"  and  that  the  proclamation  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  marked  a  beginning  of  a  new 
order.  This  being  so,  there  can  be  no  more  perverse 
error  than  to  suppose  that  He  intended  the  Eucharist 
to  be  in  any  sense  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish  sacri- 
fices, or  the  Christian  ministry  to  be  in  any  sense  the 
successors  of  the  Jewish  priests.  The  series  of  Jewish 
sacrifices  culminated  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the 
cross,  and  ended  there.  Those  sacrifices,  like  those  of 
other  early  religions,  had  been  (as  I  have  shown)  partly 
presents  or  tenders  of  hospitality  to  the  Deity,  partly 
offerings  to  placate  His  wrath,  and  partly  the  forms  by 
which  the  covenant  between  God  and  His  people  was 
ratified  and  renewed.  Prophets  and  psalmists  had  long 
ago  tried  to  purify  and  elevate  the  current  conceptions 
of  sacrifice,  protesting  that  Jehovah  does  not  eat  bull's 
flesh  nor  drink  the  blood  of  goats ;  that  He  will  not  be 
pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  or  ten  thousands  of  rivers 


ABROGATION  OF  JEWISH  PRIESTHOOD   281 

of  oil ;  that  His  just  anger  will  not  be  appeased  by  any 
bloody  sacrifice,  not  even  if  a  man  should  give  his  firstborn 
for  his  transgressions,  the  fruit  of  his  body  for  the  sin  of 
his  soul;  that  the  time  was  coming  when  God  should 
write  a  new  covenant  in  the  hearts  of  His  people.  But 
these  admonitions  had  not  been  listened  to.  We  must  not 
forget  that  the  full  development  of  the  ceremonial  law 
came  after,  not  before,  the  prophets  and  psalms;  in  its 
arrogant  completeness  the  Law  was  not  an  old  thing  in 
our  Lord's  time :  as  usually  happens,  its  tyranny  was  most 
imposing  when  it  was  tottering  to  its  fall.  The  true  idea 
of  sacrifice,  as  I  have  said,  is  realised  when  priest  and 
victim,  God  and  worshippers,  are  atoned  or  united.  This 
atonement,  which  had  been  already  symbolised  in  the 
fully  developed  sacrifice  under  the  old  covenant,  was 
achieved  once  for  all  by  Christ,  when  He  who  is  both  God 
and  man  offered  Himself,  and  us  His  members  in  Himself, 
as  an  expiation  for  sin.  Herein  the  idea  which  had 
been  adumbrated  with  varying  clearness  by  all  previous 
sacrifices  was  fully  realised.  The  antitype  had  now  been 
manifested,  and  the  type  or  symbol  was  now  abrogated 
for  ever. 

It  is  plain  that  this  abrogation  of  the  old  sacrificial 
priesthood  was  understood  by  the  Christian  Church  in 
the  generation  after  our  Lord.  The  silence  of  St.  Paul 
on  the  subject  of  the  priesthood  is  extremely  significant. 
When  he  enumerates  the  various  offices  to  which  men 
are  called  in  the  Church,  he  mentions  apostles,  prophets, 
workers  of  miracles,  etc.,  but  he  never  says,  "  He  gave 
some,  priests."  Among  the  numerous  detailed  directions 
which  he  gives  to  the  Churches  there  is  not  a  word  about 
the  proper  manner  of  offering  sacrifice.  He  recognises 
no  sacrifices,  except,  on  the  one  hand,  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  and,  on  the  other,  the  sacrifice  of  our  own  bodies 
in  reasonable  service  (Rom.  xii.  i).     The  breach  of  con- 


282  THE   SACRAMENTS 

tinuity  between  the  Jewish  priesthood  and  the  Christian 
ministry  is  complete.  The  former  ends  with  Christ,  the 
latter  begins  afresh  from  Him. 

But  though  this  is  indisputable,  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  what  is  the  significance  of  the  facts  that  Christ 
Himself  accepted  baptism  from  John  the  Baptist;  that 
He  authorised  the  rite  of  baptism,  which  was  so  closely 
connected  with  the  mission  of  the  last  of  the  prophets ; 
and  that  the  original  Lord's  Supper  was  either  a  paschal 
meal  or  in  closest  connexion  with  the  Passover.  The 
original  significance  of  baptism  was  repentance  and 
conversion  {iierdvoia^  with  which  went  remission  of  sins. 
But  while  John  baptised  with  water,  the  Christian  was 
baptised  "with  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  shows  that  a  visible  manifestation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  expected  to  follow  the  imposition  of  hands, 
which  was  then  regarded  as  the  completion  of  the 
baptismal  rite.  So  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  xii.  13)  says,  "By 
one  Spirit  were  ye  all  baptised  into  one  body."  But 
the  most  salient  difference  between  the  baptism  of  John 
and  Christian  baptism  is  that  indicated  in  the  last  words 
of  the  verse  just  quoted.  The  baptism  of  John  regarded 
the  individual  only,  while  Christian  baptism  was  above 
all  things  an  admission  into  the  privileges  of  membership 
in  Christ's  body.  Such  phrases  as  "baptised  into  Jesus 
Christ"  or  "into  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ"  show  how 
much  this  idea  had  come  into  prominence.  It  may 
even  be,  as  Weizsacker^  suggests,  that  converts  were 
formally  baptised  "into  one  body"  as  well  as  "into  the 
name  of  Christ,"  or  with  the  Trinitarian  formula,  which 
was   certainly   very  early  in   use.     Our   Lord's   teaching 

*  This  writer  {Apostolic  Age,  vol.  ii.  252,  English  edition)  thinks  it  very 
douVitful  whether  Christ  instituted  baptism  as  a  rite  of  admission  to  His 
society.  The  point,  of  course,  cannot  be  proved  either  way ;  but  considering 
how  fully  established  the  practice  was  when  St.  Paul  wrote,  I  cannot  see  why 
we  should  dispute  the  tradition. 


SACRAMENTS   IN   N.T  283 

as  to  the  sacramental  grace  conferred  in  baptism  is 
confined  to  one  chapter  of  St.  John — the  discourse  to 
Nicodemus.  It  would  be  impossible  here  to  discuss 
the  historical  accuracy  of  the  reports  of  our  Lord's 
discourses  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  is  possible,  as  Wendt 
thinks,  that  the  word  "water"  in  verse  5  is  an  inter- 
polation, since  nothing  more  is  said  about  water  in  the 
context.  But  we  are  on  sure  ground  when  we  say 
that  the  main  difference  between  John's  baptism  and 
that  of  Christ  was  that  which  I  have  mentioned — that 
the  latter  gave  admission  to  the  Church,  the  mystical 
body  of  Christ,  and  therewith  brought  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Baptism  was  thus  designed  to  take  the 
place  of  circumcision;  and  it  is  surely  significant  that 
our  Lord  ignored  the  legal  rite  of  admission,  and  put  in 
its  place  one  not  enjoined  in  the  written  law. 

The  connexion  of  the  Passover  with  Holy  Communion 
is  that  of  type  to  commemoration.  Both  point  to  the 
great  central  fact — the  death  of  Christ.  It  was  certainly 
not  intended  that  the  Church  should  forget  the  symbolism 
of  the  Passover  (i  Cor.  v.  7).  But  the  Eucharist  per- 
petuated the  paschal  meal,  not  any  priestly  sacrifice,  and 
the  identification  of  Christ  Himself  with  the  Paschaj 
Lamb  made  any  real  repetition  of  the  sacrifice  im- 
possible.i 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  no  theory  of  continuity  between 
Jewish  and  Christian  cultus  can  be  built  either  on  John's 
baptism  or  on  the  Passover.     Let  us  next  consider  what 

^  There  is  no  agreement  as  to  whether  the  words  in  John  vi. ,  supposing 
them  to  be  correctly  reported,  refer  specifically  to  the  Sacrament  which  had 
not  yet  been  instituted,  or  not.  Probably  when  our  Lord  said,  "  Except  ye 
eat,"  etc.  {v.  53),  He  had  in  His  mind  the  solemn  rite  which  He  purposed 
to  found,  but  intended  the  words  to  have  a  wider,  more  general,  and  more 
metaphorical  meaning.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely  that  He  was 
thinking  only  or  chiefly  of  participation  in  a  Sacrament  which  was  not  to 
begin  till  after  His  death.  The  Greek  Fathers,  as  Waterland  and  Jeremy 
Taylor  show,  are  nearly  all  against  the  Eucharistic  reference. 


284  THE  SACRAMENTS 

were  the  elements  in  the  Jewish  sacrificial  worship  which 
our  Lord  wished  to  exclude ;  for  His  attitude  cannot  be 
otherwise  explained.  In  the  first  place,  bloody  sacrifices 
were  for  ever  abolished.  The  bloody  sacrifice,  if  honorific, 
assumes  that  God  will  eat  bull's  flesh  and  drink  the  blood 
of  goats ;  if  piacular,  that  the  blood  of  an  animal  or  of  a 
human  being  will  be  accepted  by  God  as  an  expiation 
of  the  guilt  of  the  worshippers.  The  doctrine  of  substitu- 
tion (vicarious  punishment)  is  unethical,  though  that  of 
vicarious  suffering  is  not.  Jesus  Christ  was  able  by  His 
death  to  atone  God  and  man  because  He  was  God  as  well 
as  man.  No  other  bloodshedding  could  take  away  sin. 
Bloody  sacrifices,  therefore,  and  the  doctrine  of  substitu- 
tion were  abolished.  Further,  since  it  was  one  object  of 
the  Incarnation  to  give  to  all  faithful  people  immediate 
access  to  God,  the  Jewish  priesthood,  with  its  special 
prerogative  of  offering  acceptable  sacrifices,  could  no 
longer  have  any  place.  Whatever  delegation  of  privilege 
might  be  made  for  the  sake  of  order  and  discipline  in  the 
Christian  Church,  the  caste-distinctions  which  are  main- 
tained in  the  stories  about  the  fate  of  Korah  and  his 
company,  and  the  death  of  Uzzah,  have  nothing  corre- 
sponding to  them  in  Christianity.  The  Christian  Sacra- 
ment of  admission  does  not  absolutely  require  the 
mediation  of  a  priest ;  the  Christian  Sacrament  of 
membership  was  designed  to  be  a  spiritual  sacrifice 
offered  to  God  by  a  royal  priesthood  comprising  all  the 
Christian  body.  These  differences  between  the  Jewish 
and  the  Christian  Sacraments  are  sufficient  to  explain 
our  Lord's  evident  intention  to  break  the  continuity. 

The  results  at  which  we  have  arrived  so  far  may  be 
thus  summed  up.  The  need  of  Sacraments  has  been 
universally  felt  both  by  savage  and  civilised  mankind. 
It  has  been  met  everywhere  in  much  the  same  way — 
by  attributing  a  mysterious  efficacy  to  certain  prescribed 


BREACH   WITH   JUDAISM  285 

symbolical  acts,  which  are  generally  chosen  from  the 
simplest  and  commonest  functions  of  ordinary  life,  such 
as  washing  and  eating.  The  special  boons  which  the 
worshippers  expect  to  obtain  by  these  ceremonies  are 
the  goodwill  and  protection  of  the  Deity,  the  forgive- 
ness of  their  sins,  the  acquisition  of  divine  grace  by 
mystical  union  with  God,  and  the  consecration  of  human 
bonds  of  brotherhood  by  the  solemn  communion  of  every 
member  of  the  society  in  the  presence  of  God.  We  have 
seen  that  our  Lord  not  only  gave  His  sanction  to  these 
religious  aspirations,  and  confirmed  in  the  most  explicit 
manner  the  belief  as  to  the  relation  between  God  and 
man  upon  which  they  rest,  but  that  He  chose  as  vehicles 
of  the  graces  which  He  promised  the  most  familiar  and 
universal  of  all  sacramental  forms.  But  we  have  seen 
also  that  He  found  it  necessary  to  make  a  breach  with 
one  of  the  most  highly  organised  institutions  which 
had  ever  been  formed  for  the  conservation  of  a  national 
cultus ;  although  He  knew  that  the  result  of  doing  so 
would  be  an  internecine  warfare  between  His  Gospel  and 
the  hierarchy  of  His  own  nation.  My  argument  is  that 
His  action  proves  (i)  that  a  sacramental  system  is 
necessary  to  true  religion,  (2)  that  there  are  developments 
of  the  sacramental  system  which  are  irreconcilable  with  it. 
Having  got  thus  far,  I  will  proceed  to  consider  shortly 
what  were  the  chief  accretions  from  without  which 
gathered  round  these  institutions,  and  what  changes,  if 
any,  came  over  the  Church's  conception  of  the  two  great 
Sacraments.  This  done,  I  will  conclude  by  offering 
some  considerations  as  to  what  these  two  Sacraments 
should  mean  for  us  to-day — not  with  any  arrogant  ex- 
pectation of  arriving  at  the  final  truth  on  one  of  the  most 
mysterious  of  all  subjects,  but  in  the  hope  that  they  may 
help  us  to  get  from  these  holy  mysteries  all  the  good  that 
we  are  able  to  assimilate. 


286  THE  SACRAMENTS 

Our  information  about  the  primitive  ritual  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  sadly  defective,  and  on  some  points  there  is 
room  for  considerable  divergence  of  opinion.  I  must 
therefore  ask  pardon  for  stating  briefly  and  somewhat 
dogmatically  what  I  believe  to  be  the  most  probable 
facts,  since  in  an  essay  of  this  kind  a  full  discussion  of 
controverted  points  would  be  impossible. 

The  original  Eucharist  immediately  followed  a  common 
meal,  as  the  Didache  expressly  tells  us.  The  ceremony  at 
first  consisted  of  two  parts:  (i)  an  oblation,  with  thanks- 
giving, of  the  fruits  of  the  earth ;  (2)  the  communion 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  From  the  very  first 
the  thank-offering  was  combined  with  charitable  gifts  to 
the  poor.  This  last  was  in  accordance  with  a  specifically 
Jewish  doctrine,  that  gifts  to  God  may  be  bestowed  upon 
the  poor  instead,  and  that  alms  thus  given  are  a  true 
and  acceptable  sacrifice  (see  Eccles.  xxxii.  2  ;  Phil. 
iv.  18;  Heb.  xiii.  16).  Part  of  the  thank-offering  was, 
however,  sacramentally  eaten.  The  Didach^  indicates 
that,  according  to  the  original  idea,  the  offering  was  of  the 
fruits  of  the  earth,  not  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 
It  is  of  these  oblations,  and  not  of  the  administration  of 
the  elements,  that  sacrificial  language  is  used  by  the  early 
Fathers.  Not  until  Cyprian  do  we  find  the  doctrine  that 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  offered  in  sacrifice, 
and  it  was  perhaps  not  till  the  ninth  century  that  "the 
central  point  of  the  sacrificial  idea  was  shifted  from  the 
oblation  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth  to  the  offering  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."  ^  But  though  these  obla- 
tions and  the  communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
seem  to  have  originally  formed  two  parts  of  the  service, 
it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  ever  disconnected,  and 
still  less  that  the  fusion  of  the  two  into  one  office  was 
a  retrogression.     On   the   contrary,  the   oblation  of  the 

*  Encyclopadta  Briiannica,  "Sacrifice,"  by  Prof.  Hatch. 


FUSION  OF  OBLATION  AND  COMMUNION  287 

fruits  of  the  earth  gained  a  much  deeper  meaning  when 
it  was  brought  into  closer  connexion  with  the  great 
Sacrament.  The  fruits  of  the  earth  are,  in  a  sense,  the 
Body  of  Christ,  who  has  hallowed  anew  by  His  Incarna- 
tion all  natural  substances,  which  owe  their  existence 
to  Him  as  the  Instrument  in  creation.  As  Irenaeus  says, 
"Since  we  are  members  of  Him,  and  are  nourished  by 
the  creature,  and  He  Himself  provides  us  with  the  creatures. 
He  confessed  the  cup  which  the  creature  supplies  to  be 
His  own  Blood,  and  the  bread  supplied  by  the  crea- 
ture to  be  His  own  Body."  Thus  the  thank-offering 
became  fused  easily  and  naturally  with  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, and  enriched  its  significance  by  making  it  also  an 
act  of  oblation,  and  of  self-oblation  on  the  part  of  the 
worshippers.  Thus  the  deepest  meaning  of  the  Eucharist 
was  brought  out.  The  spiritual  sacrifice  in  Holy  Com- 
munion is  the  self-consecration  of  the  faithful.  But  it  is 
only  in  and  with  Christ,  and  by  virtue  of  His  oblation  of 
Himself,  which  is  for  ever  "pleaded  before  the  throne  of 
God,"  that  we,  as  His  mystical  Body,  are  able  to  consecrate 
ourselves.  We  may  therefore  consider  that  the  fusion  of 
the  old  "  oblation "  with  the  sacramental  meal  was  a 
perfectly  legitimate  and  beneficial  development  of  the 
original  institution. 

We  must  now  revert  to  the  Greek  mysteriosophy  and 
its  influence  upon  the  Sacraments.  And  for  our  present 
purpose  it  really  does  not  matter  much  whether  those 
ideas  which  are  most  characteristic  of  the  Greek  mystery- 
worship  were  directly  borrowed  by  the  Church,  or  whether 
they  arose  spontaneously  in  the  latter,  under  the  same 
influences  which  produced  them  in  the  former.  Personally 
I  have  no  doubt  that  there  was  a  good  deal  of  direct, 
deliberate  borrowing ;  but  this  is  a  matter  which  can 
hardly  be  proved.  It  is,  of  course,  well  known  to  all 
educated   men   that   the   early   Christians   who  spoke  in 


288  THE   SACRAMENTS 

Greek — that  is  to  say,  the  large  majority  of  the  Church — 
called  the  sacraments  mysteries  (lULvcmjpia).  The  name  is 
much  more  significant  than  the  Latin  word  sacramentum ; 
for  this  latter  very  early  acquired  a  peculiar  and  technical 
meaning,  which  cannot  be  paralleled  from  its  uses  in 
pagan  literature.^  The  word  "mystery,"  on  the  other  hand, 
had  a  clearly  defined  meaning  in  religious  language,  and 
when  we  find  it  adopted  as  the  regular  name  of  the 
Christian  Sacraments,  we  are  justified  in  concluding  that 
the  Church  considered  that  in  the  Sacraments  it  had  an 
organised  cultus  of  the  same  kind  as  the  Greek  mysteries. 
The  case  is  strengthened  when  we  find  that  not  only  the  word 
"mystery,"  but  the  whole  terminology  of  the  mysteries, 
was  habitually  used  by  Christians  of  their  Sacraments.  To 
give  a  few  examples  only :  Baptism  is  initiation  {^fxvria-ii) ; 
the  unbaptised  are  the  uninitiated  (ot  aix\)YiToi)\  the 
Christian  priest  is  the  "  mystagogue  of  hidden  mysteries  " 
(Gregory  of  Nyssa).  The  delivery  of  the  sacred  elements 
is  7rapdSo(TL9i  a  technical  word  of  the  mysteries,  and  the 
words  "seal"  and  "illumination,"  which  were  applied  to 
Baptism,  were  familiar  to  all  who  knew  the  Greek  ritual. 

What,  then,  were  the  leading  ideas  suggested  by  the 
word  "  mystery  "  ?  Primarily,  symbolism.  "  One  thing  is 
seen,  another  is  understood,"  as  St.  Augustine  says,  or, 
in  St.  Chrysostom's  words,  "  We  see  one  thing  and  believe 
another."  According  to  the  mystical  philosophy  of  the 
time,  every  stage  in  the  moral  and  intellectual  life  of  man 
presents  us  at  once  with  a  thing  and  the  covering  of  a 
thing.     The  whole  world  is  a  system  of  great,  graduated, 


^  The  transition  from  the  classical  usage  is  best  illustrated  from  Pliny's 
famous  letter  to  Trajan  about  the  Christians,  in  which  he  says  that  they  bind 
themselves  by  a  sacramentum  not  to  commit  any  crime,  but  to  abstain  from 
wrong-doing.  In  the  Vulgate  we  have  sacramentum  used  as  a  translation  of 
fxvcTTijpLov  in  Ephesians  v.  32  ;  I  Timothy  iii.  16  ;  Revelation  i.  20,  xvii.  7  ; 
and  in  earlier  Latin  versions  in  Romans  xvi.  25  j  i  Corinthians  xiii.  2,  where 
the  Vulgate  has  viysteHum. 


INFLUENCE  OF  GREEK   MYSTERIES    289 

ordered  mysteries,  through  which  we  pass  successively  till 
we  arrive  at  the  beatific  vision.  From  this  point  of  view 
all  life  is  sacramental,  though  not  in  the  same  degree,  and 
everything  that  reveals  to  us  the  nature  or  purposes  of 
God  may  be  called  a  sacrament.  So  Justin  and  TertuUian 
call  the  Crucifixion  a  sacrament ;  Leo  frequently  calls  the 
Incarnation  a  sacrament ;  revealed  truths  and  even  pious 
opinions  are  called  mysteriorum  sacramenta  by  Isidore; 
and  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  enumerates  thirty,  giving  Baptism 
and  the  Eucharist  the  first  place.  Though  this  view  of 
life  as  sacramental  may  tend  to  derogate  somewhat  from 
the  exclusive  dignity  of  the  great  sacraments,  it  imports 
no  new  idea  into  the  conception  of  a  sacrament,  but  rather 
helps  us  to  understand  what  a  sacrament  is. 

But  the  mysteries  had  other  associations,  some  of  which 
were  more  foreign  to  our  Lord's  institution.  Such  were 
those  of  an  arcanum^  or  secret — the  importation  of  a  kind 
of  freemasonry  into  religion ;  that  of  sacerdotalism — the 
notion  that  God  has  explicitly  limited  Himself  to  certain 
prescribed  channels,  places,  ministers,  formulas,  of  grace ; 
the  sensuous-mystical  or  ritualistic  element,  in  which 
various  vague  associations  of  ideas,  conveyed  by  appeals 
to  the  several  senses,  are  awakened  in  order  to  deepen  the 
impression  produced  by  the  ceremony;  and  lastly,  the 
close  connexion  between  initiation  and  the  hope  of  a 
future  life,  whereby  the  sacrament  came  to  be  regarded  as 
a  "medicine  of  immortality,"  rather  than,  as  Christ  in- 
tended, a  symbol  of  an  actually  existing  blessed  fellowship 
never  to  be  dissolved. 

Let  us  consider  these  in  order.  Nothing  is  more  human 
than  curiosity  on  the  one  hand  and  satisfaction  at  the 
possession  of  a  secret  on  the  other.  And  in  early  times 
nothing  seemed  more  natural  than  to  ascribe  a  certain 
potency  and  sacredness  to  names — to  suppose,  for  instance, 
that  a  person  receives  some  real  injury  when  his  name  is 
u 


290  THE  SACRAMENTS 

taken  in  vain.  And  so  we  find  that  secret  religious 
formulae  are  jealously  guarded  by  many  barbarous  nations. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  be  surprised  that  the  early  Christians 
were  not  only  anxious  to  preserve  their  most  sacred  cere- 
monies from  profanation  and  ridicule  by  the  heathen,  but 
that  they  sometimes  sought  to  invest  their  sacraments 
with  an  atmosphere  of  mystery  and  even  of  terror.  To 
this  tendency  we  must  ascribe  such  adjectives  as  "  dread  " 
and  "  horrible,"  which  we  often  find  applied  to  the  sacra- 
ments. But  it  is  not  likely  that  Christ  intended  us  to 
approach  His  table  in  a  servile  and  trembling  spirit,  or 
that  He  gave  the  Church  any  secrets  to  guard. 

The  next  point  is  one  of  far  greater  importance.  We 
have  seen  that  St.  Paul  pointedly  ignores  the  office  of 
priest  when  he  is  legislating  for  his  Churches,  and  that 
no  continuity  can  be  asserted  between  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  priesthood.  Still  less  can  it  be  supposed  that 
Christ  intended  the  "  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God  "  to 
claim  the  powers  and  imitate  the  methods  of  the  priests 
of  Mithras  and  Zagreus.  But  the  approximation  was  so 
rapid  that  even  Justin  Martyr  accuses  the  worshippers  of 
Mithras  of  plagiarising  from  Christian  ceremonies.  A  still 
earlier  instance  is  that  of  baptism  for  the  dead,  to  which 
St.  Paul  refers  (i  Cor.  xv.  29),  but  surely  not  with  ap- 
proval, and  with  which  we  may  compare  the  legend  which 
Hermas  recounts,  that  Christ  baptised  the  Old  Testament 
saints  in  Hades,  thereby  conferring  upon  them  the  neces- 
sary "  seal "  of  salvation.  Masses  for  the  dead  are  another 
product  of  this  unethical  mechanical  theory  of  the  efficacy 
of  sacraments.  Now  this  idea  seems  to  come  straight 
from  the  mysteries.  Plato  speaks  of  ceremonies  of  de- 
liverance and  purification  performed  in  the  mysteries  "  for 
quick  and  dead"  (Plato,  Politicus,  364),  and  an  Orphic 
fragment  makes  mention  of  masses  "for  the  deliverance 
of  sinful   ancestors."     And   the   doctrine   extra  ecclesiam 


GREEK   SACERDOTALISM  291 

nulla  salus  is  exactly  that  of  the  mysteries,  which  taught 
that  the  uninitiated  shall  all  be  immersed  in  mud  after 
their  death.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  coarsening  of 
the  idea  of  the  boons  conferred  in  the  Sacraments  was 
coincident  with  the  great  influx  of  pagans  into  the 
Church.  More  particularly  is  this  true  in  relation  to  the 
consecrated  elements  in  Holy  Communion.  We  have  seen 
that  at  first  the  "sacrifice"  was  only  an  offering  of  the 
fruits  of  the  earth,  and  that  afterwards,  by  a  perfectly 
natural  and  legitimate  extension,  this  sacrifice  was  joined 
with  the  sacramental  meal,  and  made  to  symbolise  the 
sacrifice  of  ourselves,  which  by  virtue  of  our  union  with 
Christ  we  are  privileged  to  offer  to  God.  The  Greeks  are 
fond  of  using  such  phrases  as  "the  unbloody  sacrifice," 
"  the  immaterial  and  mental  sacrifice,"  of  the  Eucharist,  in 
order  to  emphasise  its  unique  character.  But  after  the 
great  influx  of  pagans  into  the  Church,  the  pagan-Jewish 
notion  of  piacular  sacrifice  insidiously  reintroduced  itself. 
The  legitimate  conception  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  symbolic 
representation  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  hardened  into 
that  of  an  actual  continuation  or  repetition  of  that  sacri- 
fice. And  therewith  we  find  a  growing  tendency  to  use 
materialistic  language  about  the  sacred  elements,  a  ten- 
dency which  is  pagan  but  not  Jewish.  Chrysostom  almost 
revels  in  such  repulsive  phrases  as,  "  We  bury  our  teeth  in 
His  flesh";  "Our  tongues  are  red  with  His  most  sacred 
blood."  Such  "  gross  surmises  "  were  as  foreign  to  Christ's 
original  institution  as  they  were  familiar  to  Orientalised 
Hellenism. 

The  Church  had  again  its  bloody  sacrifice,  though  the 
blood  was  not  visible.  The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
however,  was  slow  in  formulating  itself.  In  Gregory  it  is 
the  form  and  not  the  substance  of  the  elements  which  is 
changed  ;  indeed,  the  doctrine  of  transformation  (not  tran- 
substantiation),  which    is    carefully    stated    by  John    of 


292  THE  SACRAMENTS 

Damascus,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  Church  to  this 
day.  So  long  as  Christian  philosophy  remained  pre- 
dominantly Platonic,  the  materialisation  of  the  Eucharist 
could  not  be  complete.  Indeed,  the  danger  was  rather 
in  the  opposite  direction.  For  in  the  first  place  the  con- 
ception of  spiritual  progress  as  a  process  of  simplification 
(aTrXtoo-f?) — the  negative  road  of  the  mystics — is  in  reality 
antagonistic  to  sacramentalism,  except  as  a  concession  to 
human  weakness.  Dionysius  says  that  "  most  of  us "  do 
not  believe  what  we  are  told  about  the  sacraments,  because 
we  only  look  at  them  through  the  sensuous  symbols  which 
"have  become  attached  to  them."  If  we  would  "strip 
them  and  see  them  naked  and  pure,"  we  should  be  able  to 
contemplate  and  worship  "  the  fountain  of  life  which  pours 
into  itself,"  "  which  supplies  the  science  of  all  sciences,  and 
is  always  itself  seen  by  itself."  And  in  the  second  place, 
the  whole  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  rests  upon  the 
Stoical  or  Aristotelian  distinction  of  "substance"  and 
"  accidents,"  which  is  quite  contrary  to  Platonism.^  Origen 
teaches  that  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is 
real  because  it  is  spiritual  and  not  corporeal.  But  pressure 
was  exerted  upon  the  Church  from  many  sides  to  restore 
the  pagan-Jewish  hierarchy  and  sacrifices.  The  Roman 
Empire  and  the  ancient  Jewish  religion  were  two  great 
facts  which  suggested  analogies  that  could  not  be  put  out 
of  sight.  Even  Clement  of  Rome  attempts  to  justify  a 
Christian  hierarchy  by  these  two  analogies.  In  civil 
affairs,  he  says,  "all  are  arranged,  from  the  Emperor 
downwards,  in  a  carefully  graduated  hierarchical  system. 
Such  must  be  the  unity  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  It  must  be 
based  on  mutual  submission,  dependence,  and  subordina- 
tion. So  the  Jewish  Church  also  had  its  hierarchy,  high 
priests,  Levites,  and^  people."  If  this  could  be  written 
at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  how  much   more  over- 

*  Cl.  Bigg,  Christian  Plaionists  oj  Alexandria^  p.  219. 


DEGRADATION   OF   THE   EUCHARIST     293 

whelming  must  have  been  the  influence  of  such  analogies 
some  centuries  later,  when  the  empire  had  been  Oriental- 
ised, and  liberty  had  ceased  to  be  even  a  memory} 
The  restored  sacerdotalism,  and  the  eucharistic  doctrine 
attached  to  it,  not  only  gratified  the  religious  instincts 
of  the  majority,  who  had  never  really  been  converted  from 
paganism,  but,  as  Harnack  says,^  gathered  up  and  secured 
all  that  the  Church  most  prized — "  its  dogma,  its  mystical 
relation  to  Christ,  the  fellowship  of  believers,  the  priest, 
the  sacrifice,  the  miraculous  power  which  God  had  given 
to  His  Church,  and  the  satisfaction  of  the  sensuous  im- 
pulse in  piety."  It  would,  however,  be  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  the  externalisation  of  sacramental  doctrine 
was  most  rigidly  formulated  in  the  time  of  the  Church's 
greatest  power.  It  was  not  till  the  authority  of  Rome 
was  questioned,  and  her  supremacy  menaced,  that  these 
weapons  were  given  their  sharpest  edge.  At  the  Council 
of  Trent  the  exclusive  prerogatives  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  were  asserted  in  a  cruder  and  less  ethical  form 
than  ever  before.  And  the  nineteenth  century  has  wit- 
nessed a  yet  lower  decline.^  The  Roman  Church  now 
teaches  distinctly  that  each  Eucharist  is  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  offered  to  the  Father,  and  that  the  whole  Christ, 
including  His  human  soul  and  divine  nature,  is  contained 
in  each  crumb  of  bread.  The  retrogression  can  only  be 
explained  by  the  complete  alienation  of  independent 
thought  from  the  Roman  Church,  and  by  the  tendency 
of  all  weak  governments  to  use  any  weapons  by  which 
their  authority  may  be  maintained. 

1  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  vol.  vi.  p.  233  (English  translation). 

2  MOBERLY,  Ministerial  Priesthood,  p.  350,  quotes  the  following  utterance 
of  Cardinal  Vaughan :  "Did  they  [the  Anglican  clergy]  claim  the  power  to 
produce  the  actual  living  Christ  Jesus  by  transubstantiation  upon  the  altar 
according  to  the  claim  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches  ?  "  His  object 
is  to  prove  that  the  Anglican  Eucharist  is  "an  essentially  different  sacrifice" 
from  the  Roman,  since  our  clergy  "claim  no  miraculous,  supernatural 
sacrificial  powers." 


294  THE   SACRAMENTS 

The  use  of  an  impressive  ritual,  which  was  the  third 
point  that  I  mentioned  as  characteristic  of  the  Greek 
mysteries,  was  no  doubt  foreign  to  the  first  generation  of 
Christians,  but  only  because  they  had  no  opportunities 
of  practising  it.  Such  appeals  to  the  senses  as  beautiful 
architecture,  solemn  music,  reverent  gestures,  symbolic 
colours,  incense,  and  the  like,  are  so  natural  and  universal 
that  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  Christian 
Church  would  not  have  evolved  them  spontaneously.  And 
it  is  almost  equally  foolish  to  argue  that  because  Christ 
did  not  enjoin  them  He  would  therefore  have  disapproved 
of  them. 

The  close  connexion  of  sacramental  grace  with  the 
hope  of  happiness  hereafter  can  hardly  be  dissociated  in 
Church  history  from  the  ideas  which  have  been  discussed 
under  the  second  heading.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that 
the  notion  of  the  sacramental  elements  as  elixirs  of  life 
passed  from  the  mysteries  into  the  minds  of  the  Greek 
Fathers.  Thus  was  strengthened  the  tendency  to  view 
salvation  too  exclusively  under  the  form  of  time  —  a 
mistake  which  leads  to  many  intellectual  difficulties  and 
some  loss  to  the  spiritual  life.  Our  Lord's  words,  "  Whoso 
eateth  My  flesh  and  drinketh  My  blood  hath  eternal  life," 
have  a  far  richer  meaning  than  is  conveyed  by  the  favourite 
phrase,  "  medicine  of  immortality." 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  give  any  further  historical  facts 
about  the  sacramental  doctrine  of  the  Church.  What  I 
have  written  about  the  pagan  mysteries  and  the  primitive 
cults  of  other  races  has  been  written  mainly  with  a  view 
to  prove  that  the  Sacraments,  as  we  know  them,  contain 
elements  which  were  not  originated  by  Christ,  nor  ordained 
by  Him,  but  which  may  be  considered  the  common  pro- 
ducts of  all  religions.  I  have  also  been  at  pains  to  show 
that  some  of  these  elements  are,  to  say  the  least,  very 
susceptible  of  perversion.     There  is  always  a  residue  of 


ARE   SYMBOLS   NECESSARY?  295 

barbarism  in  the  minds  even  of  the  most  civilised  peoples, 
which  tends  to  drag  back  their  religion  to  forms  which 
are  not  only  pre-Christian,  but  which  belong  to  those 
conceptions  of  the  relation  between  God  and  man  which 
Christ  intended  to  abolish  for  ever.  I  wish  now  to  attempt, 
in  more  detail,  to  disengage  the  wheat  from  the  chaff  in 
this  great  matter. 

The  first  question  which  must  occupy  us  is  this :  Can 
the  use  of  material  symbols  in  religion  be  defended,  except 
as  milk  for  babes?  For  instance,  is  not  spiritual  com- 
munion a  higher  act  of  worship  than  the  Lord's  Supper, 
supposing  the  feelings  of  the  worshipper  to  be  equally 
devotional?  Ought  we  not  to  try  to  dispense  with  the 
sensuous  and  mechanical  element  as  far  as  possible  ?  These 
questions  have  been  answered  in  the  affirmative  by  the 
Quakers,  who  are  perhaps  for  that  reason  the  most  con- 
sistent representatives  of  one  type  of  contemplative 
mysticism.  They  agree  with  the  Ebionites  of  the  first 
century,  who  taught  that  our  Lord  declared,  "  I  am  come 
to  abolish  sacrifices."  This  is  a  type  of  religion  which  has 
appeared  several  times  in  the  history  of  Christianity. 
Some  of  the  pantheistic  mystics  of  the  Middle  Ages  tried 
to  dispense  with  sacraments ;  but  their  reputation  was  by 
no  means  so  untarnished  as  that  of  the  Society  of  Friends, 
and  their  systems  were  short-lived.  The  historian  must 
admit  that  non-sacramental  Christianity  has  never  been 
popular  or  successful.  To  many  this  will  seem  a  sufficient 
refutation  of  it  as  a  practical  form  of  religion.  If 
Christianity  was  intended  to  be  an  universal  religion,  it 
must  not  dispense  with  rites  which  to  many  express  the 
very  idea  of  religious  worship.  But  I  do  not  think  that 
we  need  content  ourselves  with  this  argument  from  ex- 
pediency. Why  should  we  consider  that  a  spiritual  act 
is  coarsened  and  spoilt  by  being  translated  into  symbolic 
action  ?     We  have  not  (unless  we  are  Quietists)  the  same 


296  THE  SACRAMENTS 

feeling  about  language,  which  is  also  a  symbolic,  or  rather 
a  conventional,  representation  of  ideas.  It  is  no  vulgari- 
sation of  the  mysteries  of  grace  to  associate  them  with 
such  trivial  actions  as  washing  and  eating.  A  spiritual  act 
is  one  which  brings  us  into  communion  with  God,  not  one 
which  transports  us  out  of  correspondence  with  the  things 
of  time  and  space.  Indeed,  in  most  cases,  the  spiritual 
act  is  richer  and  more  complete  when  it  finds  expression 
in  some  external  symbolic  action.  I  am  not  prepared  with 
any  theory  as  to  why  this  is  so :  I  only  state  it  as  a  fact, 
which  few  will  deny,  that  the  instinct  which  draws  people 
to  seek  a  symbolic  expression  for  their  deepest  feelings  is 
very  general,  and  is  natural  and  wholesome.  There  is 
nothing  manly  in  repressing  the  natural  expression  of 
right  emotion.  The  highly  gifted  nature  is  that  of  the  man 
who  both  feels  strongly  and  can  express  his  feelings  in 
many  ways ;  he  is  a  man  of  many  symbols.  Poetry  largely 
consists  in  vividly  pourtraying  an  idea  by  clothing  it  in 
another  form ;  metaphors  are  linguistic  sacraments.  We 
may  explain  the  fact  how  we  will :  there  may  be — I  be- 
lieve there  is — a  real  hidden  harmony  in  things,  which, 
when  we  catch  it,  helps  us  to  understand  them  better  than 
when  we  view  them  "in  disconnexion,  dull  and  spiritless"; 
but  if  others  will  have  it  that  the  connexion  is  merely 
subjective,  I  do  not  complain.  It  is  enough  for  my  present 
argument  that  it  is  natural  to  seek  and  find  symbols,  and 
as  natural  for  the  man  as  for  the  child. 

"But  do  the  symbols  convey  the  grace  which  they 
express?"  I  do  not  think  that  we  can  get  much  further 
than  the  definition  given  in  our  Church  Catechism,  that 
a  sacrament  is  "  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward 
and  spiritual  grace,"  or  that  of  one  of  the  schoolmen : 
"  Sacramentum  est  signum  significans  efficaciter  effectum 
Dei  gratuitum."  We  must  remember  that  in  so  far  as  the 
celebration  of  a  sacrament  is  intended  to  produce  a  change^ 


INSTRUMENTS   OF  GRACE  297 

it  must  be  a  change  in  ourselves  and  not  in  external 
nature,  nor  in  God.  God  is  already  reconciled  to  us  in 
Christ ;  it  is  quite  unnecessary  for  us  either  to  offer  any 
new  expiatory  sacrifice  to  Him,  or  to  "plead"  any  old 
one,  as  if  He  were  in  danger  of  forgetting  His  covenant. 
The  change  to  be  produced  is  in  ourselves  only.  And 
it  is  needless  to  say  that  we  cannot  cleanse  our  souls  by 
washing  our  bodies  (cf.  i  Peter  iii.  21),  nor  assimilate  the 
merits  of  Christ  by  eating  His  flesh.  In  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, as  Hooker  says,  it  is  not  the  elements  by 
themselves,  but  the  faithful  participation  of  them,  which 
confers  grace.  And  faithful  participation  includes  the 
intention  on  our  side  to  perform  the  acts  in  consideration 
of  which  we  accept  the  promised  graces,  and  to  co-operate 
in  "  working  out  our  salvation  "  so  far  as  in  us  lies. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  must  hold  that  the  Sacraments 
are  real  vehicles  or  instruments  of  grace.  It  is  not  true  to 
say,  as  Calvin  did,  that  "  he  who  is  not  a  Christian  before 
baptism  cannot  be  made  one  by  baptism,  which  is  only  the 
seal  of  the  grace  of  God  before  received."  Statements  like 
this  "  overthrow  the  nature  of  a  sacrament "  not  less  than 
transubstantiation  does.  The  Christian,  when  he  receives 
Baptism  or  Holy  Communion,  pledges  himself  to  make  his 
life  a  living  sacrifice  to  God ;  he  transacts  the  forms, 
ordained  as  he  believes  by  Christ  Himself,  by  which  that 
pledge  is  ratified  on  his  part,  and  by  which  the  promised 
grace  is  confirmed  to  him  by  God.  The  Sacraments  are  not 
magical  formulae  which  the  spirits  must  obey;  but  they 
are  "  means  by  which  we  receive  "  real  and  great  spiritual 
benefits.  If  we  probe  the  difficulty  to  the  bottom,  we 
find  that  it  is  really  part  of  a  mystery  which  environs  us 
in  all  the  circumstances  of  our  life,  and  which  is  by  no 
means  peculiar  to  acts  of  worship.  We  do  not  know,  and 
we  cannot  know,  how  there  can  be  any  causal  connexion 
between  acts  performed  in  space  and  time  and  the  con- 


298  THE   SACRAMENTS 

dition  of  an  immortal  being.  It  is  quite  as  difficult  to 
understand  how  the  marriage  of  a  man  and  woman  can 
be  the  cause  of  the  existence  of  an  undying  spirit  as  how 
the  reception  of  Baptism  and  Holy  Communion  can  be 
the  cause  of  the  "new  life"  in  its  beginning  and  con- 
tinuance. The  idea  is  so  difficult  that  I  think  the  question 
of  causation  had  better  be  set  aside  altogether  in  both 
cases  ;  indeed,  I  would  go  further,  and  say  that  it  had 
better  be  set  aside  in  speaking  of  the  redemption  of 
mankind  by  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  These 
are  eternal  acts,  even  as  the  generation  of  the  Son  of  God 
is  an  eternal  act.  They  belong  to  the  unchangeable  and 
ever-operating  counsels  of  God.  So  it  is  possible  for  the 
New  Testament  writers  to  say  that  the  Lamb  was  slain 
for  us  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  that  the 
Rock  which  followed  the  Israelites  through  the  wilderness 
was  Christ.  The  Passion  of  Christ  was  itself  (as  the  Greek 
Fathers  called  it)  a  sacrament  or  mystery  of  an  eternal 
truth ;  it  was  the  supreme  sacrament  of  human  history ; 
the  outward  and  visible  sign  of  a  great  supra-temporal 
fact.  In  the  Holy  Communion  this  temporal  act  of  Christ 
is  not  repeated  or  supplemented— to  hold  this  would  be 
to  imply  that  the  sacrifice  upon  the  cross  was  incomplete 
— but  the  eternal  act  is  symbolically  represented  by  means 
of  a  "spiritual  sacrifice."  In  this  spiritual  sacrifice  the 
members  of  Christ  share,  not  only  as  assistants,  but  as 
priests  and  victims  both.  The  perfect  sacrifice  is,  as  I 
have  said,  that  wherein  God,  priest,  victim,  and  bene- 
ficiaries are  all  one ;  and  it  is  this  perfect  sacrifice,  con- 
summated on  Calvary,  and  continually  present  to  the  mind 
of  God,  that  we  symbolically  commemorate  and  represent. 
If  this  view  be  condemned  as  fantastic  and  extravagant 
mysticism,  I  can  only  reply  that  the  idea  of  the  mystical 
body  of  Christ  lies  at  the  very  heart  of  Christianity  as 
conceived  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  John ;  and  that  the  dog- 


DOCTRINE   OF  SACRAMENTAL   GRACE    299 

matic  and  sacramental  system  of  the  Church  was  developed 
by  men  to  whom  the  Logos  philosophy  and  the  speculative 
mysticism  connected  with  it  were  counsels  of  truth  and 
wisdom.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  Sacraments 
of  the  Church  are  capable  of  conveying  any  very  deep 
meaning  to  those  whose  conceptions  of  personality  are  so 
rigid  as  to  make  the  mysticism  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John 
repugnant  or  unmeaning  to  them.  Those  who  wish  to 
banish  "Greek  philosophy"  (by  which  they  mean  chiefly 
the  Logos  doctrine)  from  Christianity  must  defend  the 
retention  of  the  Sacraments,  if  they  wish  to  retain  them, 
by  other  arguments.  For  myself,  I  believe  that  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  was  right  when  he  said  that  "Christianity  has 
its  strength  in  the  mystic  symbols." 

I  consider,  then,  that  the  intellectual  objections  to  the 
doctrine  of  sacramental  grace,  though  they  undoubtedly 
raise  problems  which  cannot  be  solved,  offer  no  fresh 
difficulties,  which  we  do  not  have  to  encounter  everywhere. 
We  are  left  with  a  mystery,  but  it  is  the  great  mystery  of 
human  life,  which  surrounds  all  our  actions,  and  limits  all 
our  speculations.  To  use  a  favourite  figure  of  the  mediaeval 
theologians,  our  souls  have  two  eyes,  with  one  of  which  we 
look  upon  time,  with  the  other  upon  eternity;  and  we 
cannot  focus  them  together.  "Christ  alone  could  see  with 
them  both  at  once,"  says  the  author  of  the  Theologia 
Germanica  in  a  rather  striking  sentence.  And  I  cannot 
admit  that  the  philosophy  of  the  Greek  Church  has  been 
discredited  by  the  degraded  superstitions  which  have 
appeared  in  connexion  with  it.  The  deplorable  descent 
from  Plotinus  to  lamblichus — from  mystical  idealism  to 
theurgy  and  magic — is  no  doubt  one  of  the  typical  de- 
velopments of  Platonism  or  speculative  mysticism,  and 
we  need  not  search  long  for  parallels  in  the  history  of 
Christian  thought ;  but  I  am  sure  that  there  is  a  philosophy 
of  religion  which  finds  room  for  and  even  demands  a  high 


300  THE   SACRAMENTS 

sacramental  doctrine,  and  of  which  no  one  need  be  ashamed 
to  own  himself  an  adherent. 

But  the  doctrine  of  sacramental  grace  implies  that 
certain  spiritual  advantages  are  conferred  through  special 
channels.  It  is  objected  that  this  is  not  just,  inasmuch  as  all 
have  not  the  opportunity  of  using  them.  Is  it  consistent  with 
the  justice  and  mercy  of  God  that  those  who  lived  before 
the  Christian  dispensation,  or  the  heathen  of  more  modern 
times  who  have  never  heard  the  name  of  Christ,  or  un- 
baptised  infants,  or  perhaps  even  schismatics  who  worship 
with  the  sect  to  which  their  families  and  friends  belong, 
should  suffer  in  their  eternal  interests  by  a  deprivation 
which  is  either  inevitable  or  accidental  ?  This  is  an 
objection  which  ought  to  be  most  carefully  weighed. 
The  attempts  which  have  been  made  by  religious  bodies 
at  various  times  to  make  God  the  author  and  upholder 
of  unjust  privilege  have  probably  produced  a  greater 
number  of  hideous  crimes,  and  more  undeserved  suffering, 
than  any  other  human  errors  whatsoever.  It  is  this 
assumption  which  has  been  used  to  justify  persecution  ; 
it  has  consigned  pious  and  innocent  Christians  to  the 
flames  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  cross,  and  amid 
the  strains  of  the  Te  Deum.  Are  we  to  answer  that  the 
equitable  maxim,  "  Factum  alterius  alii  nocere  non  debet," 
is  not  the  law  of  human  life,  and  therefore  presumably 
not  the  law  of  God  ?  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  persons 
are  continually  injured,  spiritually,  by  circumstances  quite 
outside  their  own  control.  All  Christian  effort  rests  on 
the  assumption  that  souls  may  be  lost  for  want  of  help. 
It  is  the  knowledge  that  terrible  and  irreparable  injustice 
may  be  the  result  of  neglect,  that  has  kindled  the  zeal 
of  the  missionary  and  the  social  reformer.  But  though 
-this  is  a  problem  and  a  mystery,  it  is  very  different  from 
such  a  monstrous  injustice  as  the  damnation  of  all  un- 
baptised   persons   would   be.      Inequality   of  opportunity 


I 


"SPECIAL   CHANNELS   OF  GRACE"      301 

is,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  inevitable  with  an  imperfect  social 
organisation  ;  but  to  send  an  innocent  babe  to  hell  because 
its  parents  could  not  or  did  not  bring  it  to  be  baptised, 
would  be  an  arbitrary  atrocity,  worthy  only  of  a  demon. 
Our  consciences  demand  something  more  than  St.  Bernard's 
"I  cannot  despair"  about  unbaptised  children.  We  must 
assert  with  all  confidence  that  there  can  be  no  arbitrary 
and  immoral  sentences  at  God's  assize.  Further  than  this 
we  can  hardly  go.  The  ultimate  verdicts  on  heathen  and 
others  are  no  business  of  ours.  We  may  say  as  much 
as  we  will  on  the  folly  and  presumption  of  separation 
from  the  visible  Church,  but  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing,  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  given  to  His  apostles, 
must  certainly  not  be  construed  as  conferring  upon  the 
hierarchy  of  the  Church  the  right  of  declaring  the  damna- 
tion of  those  who  are  outside  their  own  body.  The 
question  whether  this  or  that  class  of  persons  is  or  is  not 
outside  the  "  covenant  of  grace "  is  better  left  unasked. 
We  cannot  tell,  and  we  are  forbidden  to  pass  such  judg- 
ments. And  I  do  not  think  that  theories  about  Catho- 
licity should  be  used  to  condemn  unheard  all  reform 
movements  that  are  non-episcopalian.  Our  Articles  aver 
that  "  Churches  have  erred,"  and  it  seems  conceivable  that 
the  rulers  of  some  particular  branch  of  the  Church  might 
make  reformation  from  within  impossible,  and  actually 
compel  the  reformers  to  secede  without  giving  them  the 
opportunity  of  preserving  continuity  with  the  past  in  their 
organisation.  It  is,  if  we  may  use  such  language,  a 
favourite  trick  of  the  devil  to  capture  the  organisations 
which  were  meant  to  defeat  him,  and  to  turn  them  against 
the  cause  of  moral  and  religious  reform.  By  so  doing 
he  gets  the  extremely  powerful  forces  of  religious  con- 
servatism on  his  side,  and  is  able  to  achieve  such  startling 
successes  as  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  by  the  accredited 
hierarchy  of  Jehovah.    There  is  no  more  salutary  exercise 


302  THE   SACRAMENTS 

for  churchmen  than  to  test  their  Catholicism  by  the  situa- 
tion in  29  A.D.,  considering  candidly  whether  their  principles 
would  or  would  not  have  landed  them  on  the  side  of 
Caiaphas.  We  must  never  forget  that  the  Jewish  Church 
based  itself  on  much  the  same  sanctions  as  the  Catholic 
Church  of  our  day,  and  that  the  chief  priests  could  make 
out  a  very  good  case  for  themselves.  Like  all  great 
human  tragedies,  the  death  of  Christ  was  the  result  of 
a  conflict  not  between  good  and  evil,  but  between  the 
good  and  the  better.  It  is  no  libel  on  our  modern 
Catholics  to  suspect  that  many  of  them  would  have 
failed  to  see  that  the  Jewish  Church  had  played  its 
part,  and  would  have  echoed  the  high  priest's  fatal  words 
with  their  maxim,  "  Melius  est  ut  unus  pereat  quam 
unitas."  And  if  we  could  imagine  a  Church  which  for 
centuries  had  bolstered  itself  up  with  forged  documents, 
sham  miracles,  persistent  obscurantism  and  misrepresen- 
tation, and  persecution  whenever  possible,  it  would,  I 
suppose,  be  impossible  to  say  off-hand  that  a  body  of 
seceders  from  that  Church  would  not  carry  with  them 
into  their  new  society  the  blessings  that  are  promised 
to  a  true  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church,  even  if  they 
failed  to  secure  "  Apostolical  Succession "  for  their 
ministers.  And  although  no  such  charges  can  with  any 
fairness  be  brought  against  that  branch  of  the  Church  to 
which  we  belong  as  a  justification  for  the  secessions 
from  her,  we  must  remember  that,  according  to  our  formu- 
laries, schism  is  a  question  of  degree^  and  that  in  the  eyes 
of  a  righteous  God  the  spirit  of  dissidence  must  cut  men 
off  from  the  "  one  communion  and  fellowship "  far  more 
completely  than  any  formal  irregularities,  however  much 
we  may  deplore  them. 

The  question  may  be  further  considered  in  special 
relation  to  the  position  of  the  clergy  in  our  Church.  In 
what  sense  is  the  prerogative  of  administering  the  Sacra- 


THE  CHRISTIAN   PRIESTHOOD  303 

ments  a  priestly  office  ?  I  have  already  noticed  the  avoid- 
ance of  the  word  "  priest,"  as  the  title  of  an  office,  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  Hebrews  v.  i  there  is  a  careful 
definition  of  a  high  priest's  functions,  which  is  also  signifi- 
cant. It  there  appears  that  his  chief  office  is  "  to  offer 
gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins."  Now  this  is  certainly  no 
part  of  a  Christian  priest's  duties.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ 
abrogated  such  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  ever.  The  pagan- 
Jewish  idea  of  a  priest  is  one  who  "  essentially  acts  on 
behalf  of  another."  ^  But  this  is  exactly  the  idea  of  media- 
tion which  Jesus  Christ  came  to  destroy.  The  Christian 
priest  has  no  essential  "character,"  which  places  him  in 
a  nearer  relation  to  God  than  other  men.  The  stories 
of  Korah  and  Uzzah  have,  as  I  have  said,  no  bearing 
whatever  on  the  status  of  the  laity  in  the  Christian 
Church.  No  Christian  has  a  right  to  say  in  virtue  of  his 
office,  "Stand  apart ;  I  am  holier  than  thou."  The  change 
has  taken  place,  not  in  the  status  of  the  priesthood,  but  in 
that  of  the  laity.  The  Christian  \ao^ — the  holy  nation — 
needs  no  mediation,  for  Christ  has  made  the  whole  Church 
a  "  royal  priesthood."  The  Christian  priest  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  priestly  congregation.  He  has  received 
a  divine  commission,  it  is  true,  but  the  commission  is, 
"  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost " — a  gift  which  is  quite 
apart  from  priestly  ideas.  The  great  dignity  of  the  priestly 
calling,  under  Christianity,  is  that  it  constitutes  us  "  am- 
bassadors on  behalf  of  Christ,  as  if  God  were  entreating 
you  by  us,"  i.e.  it  is  as  prophets,  rather  than  as  priests,  that 
the  clergy  should  magnify  their  office.     By  the  same  Holy 

1  The  definition  is  given  and  accepted  as  applying  to  the  Christian  ministry 
by  Canon  Scott  Holland  (Sanday's  Sacrifice  and  Priesthood,  p.  154).  It 
may  be  compared  with  a  characteristic  sentence  of  Jerome,  "  If  a  monk  falls, 
a  priest  shall  pray  for  him  ;  but  who  shall  pray  for  a  priest  who  has  fallen  ?  " 
The  definition  quoted  in  the  text  is  capable  of  an  inoffensive  explanation,  viz. 
that  the  priest,  qua  priest,  acts  as  the  representative  of  the  people ;  but  the 
word  "essentially"  is  suspicious.  We  want  an  explicit  repudiation  of  the 
doctrine  which  is  clearly  implied  in  Jerome's  words. 


304  THE   SACRAMENTS 

Spirit,  who  is  imparted  to  the  clergy  on  their  ordination, 
"  we  all  have  access  to  the  Father " ;  as  members  of  one 
body,  "we  are  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit." 
Attempts  have  recently  been  made  to  use  this  figure 
of  the  body  and  its  members,  which,  to  St.  Paul's  mind, 
expressed  the  extreme  closeness  and  immediacy  of  our 
relations  with  our  Divine  Head,  in  defence  of  a  modified 
sacerdotal  theory.  The  priesthood,  it  is  said,  are  the 
"organs"  by  which  the  Church  communicates  with  its 
Head.  Differentiation  of  function  is  the  characteristic 
of  all  highly  organised  life.  The  various  organs  are 
adapted  to  their  several  functions,  and  if  they  interfere 
with  each  other,  the  result  is  disease.  This  is  a  very 
specious  analogy,  and  one  which  requires  to  be  carefully 
considered.  The  organic  unity  of  the  Christian  body — the 
Church — is  a  fact  of  the  highest  significance.  It  has  been 
the  great  glory  of  the  Catholic  movement  in  our  Church 
that  it  has  realised  the  immense  power  for  good  which 
the  consciousness  of  a  corporate  life  may  exercise,  and 
has  shown  in  the  most  practical  and  convincing  manner 
that  great  stores  of  devotion  and  enthusiasm  were  lying 
unused,  and  only  waiting  for  the  true  idea  of  the  Church 
to  be  once  more  proclaimed.  We  may  also  readily  admit 
that  in  all  matters  of  discipline  the  analogy  of  the  bodily 
organism  is  thoroughly  sound.  The  Church  needs  a 
hierarchy  of  officers,  not  to  exact  an  unquestioning 
obedience,  as  in  an  army  or  as  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  but  with  sufficient  authority  to  secure  order  and 
efficiency.  This  principle  demands  that  no  religious 
ceremonies — least  of  all,  the  great  Sacraments — shall  be 
administered  by  unauthorised  persons.  We  may  go 
further,  and  say  that  any  such  infringement  of  Church 
order  and  discipline  must  be  highly  displeasing  to  God ; 
but  as  applied  to  the  relations  of  priests  and  laymen,  this 
figure  of  the  body  and  its  members  may  be  exceedingly 


THE  "ORGANIC"   METAPHOR  305 

dangerous  and  misleading.  It  is  true  that  in  the  bodily- 
organism  the  brain  is  connected  with  the  limbs  by  the 
nervous  system,  which  may,  in  a  sense,  be  said  to  mediate 
between  the  brain  and  the  muscles.  But  Jesus  Christ  is 
not  the  brain  of  His  mystical  body — He  is  its  life:  and 
there  can  be  no  mediation  between  the  body  and  its  life. 
We  are  all  in  direct  relation  to  Him ;  we  not  only  need 
not,  we  cannot,  approach  Him  through  any  human  media- 
tor. In  Holy  Communion,  the  priest,  as  representing  the 
congregation,  exercises  prerogatives  which  strictly  belong 
to  the  Church  as  a  whole.  The  congregation  are  not 
spectators,  but  participants  in  the  office.  If  this  is  so, 
it  is  clear  that  the  metaphor  of  the  body  and  members 
must  be  used  with  the  utmost  caution  in  speaking  of  the 
relations  of  clergy  and  laity. 

The  notion  of  priesthood  can  hardly  be  dissociated  from 
the  kindred  notion  of  sacrifice,  which  has  generally  been 
regarded  as  the  priestly  function  par  excellence.  If  we 
could  accept  the  definition  of  sacrifice  given  by  a  recent 
advocate  of  a  mild  and  apologetic  sacerdotalism,  as  "  love 
acting  in  a  sinful  world,"  there  could  be  no  objection 
to  calling  the  Eucharist  and  a  great  many  other  things 
sacrifices.  The  word  has,  happily,  come  to  be  used  in 
a  thoroughly  Christian  sense;  but  it  has  also  other  and 
less  worthy  associations,  which  need  not  be  emphasised 
again,  since  they  have  been  discussed  earlier  in  this  paper. 
Hooker  and  Lightfoot  have  both  had  the  courage  to 
express  regret  that  the  two  words  Priest  and  Sacrifice 
have  established  themselves  in  our  Church,  not  because 
they  have  not  acquired  a  sense  in  which  they  can  be  safely 
used,  but  because  they  are  closely  associated  with  errors 
into  which  religion  is  always  very  prone  to  fall,  and  which 
it  was  a  main  object  of  the  Christian  revelation  to  banish 
for  ever.  It  would,  however,  be  quite  impossible  to  get 
rid  of  the  words  now.     Our  task  must  be  to  fix  their  best 

X 


306  THE   SACRAMENTS 

interpretation,  and  steadily  to  discountenance  all  attempts 
to  drag  them  back  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements  out 
of  which  Christ  lifted  them.  For  us  the  Holy  Communion 
is  a  sacrifice — that  of  ourselves,  our  souls  and  bodies, 
which  we  thereby  consecrate  to  the  service  of  God  ;  it  is 
a  commemoration  of  a  sacrifice — that  of  Christ  upon  the 
cross ;  it  is  also  the  representation  of  a  sacrifice— that 
of  the  Son  of  God  regarded  as  an  eternal  act.  With 
reference  to  this  last,  we  may  say,  if  we  like,  using 
popular  language,  that  we  are  doing  on  earth  what  Christ 
is  doing  in  heaven ;  we  are  certainly  right  to  insist  that 
the  sacrifice  on  Calvary  has  its  eternal,  and  therefore 
ever-active,  side ;  but  we  must  remember  that  it  is  the 
eternal  act  that  we  are  symbolically  representing,  not  the 
temporal  act  that  we  are  repeating  or  continuing  when 
we  celebrate  the  Eucharist.  If  we  will  remember  this, 
we  may  safely  make  the  service  as  solemn  and  magnificent 
as  we  can.  ^ 

The  last  point  on  which  I  wish  to  dwell  is  that  of  the 
"  Real  Presence "  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Communion.  I 
have  already  said  that  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation  rests  entirely  on  an  obsolete  meta- 
physical distinction  between  substance  and  accidents,  and 
that  even  if  it  were  true,  no  spiritual  benefit  could  accrue 
to  us  from  "  pressing  with  our  teeth  "  the  body  of  Christ. 
The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  really  a  "  myth  "  in 
the  Platonic  sense,  and  if  it  is  so  understood,  we  may 
admit  that  it  may  be  to  some  a  valuable  stimulus  to  feel- 
ings which  we  all  desire  to  make  as  acute  as  possible  at 
the  moments  when  we  are  communicating.  And  yet  we 
are  not  speaking  mythically  when  we  say  that  Christ  is 
"  really  "  present  in  the  sacrament.  Certainly  the  elements 
must  be  regarded  as  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  only 
as  "  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  "  communicant ; 
and  therefore  I  do  not  think  that  the  anxious  and  almost 


THE   REAL  PRESENCE  307 

ostentatious  reverence  which  we  often  see  paid  to  the 
unconsumed  remnants  is  wise  or  wholesome,  though  it 
may  plead  the  sanction  of  ancient  usage.  But  this  re- 
striction is  really  a  gain  ;  for  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine, 
by  confining  the  divine  presence  within  the  elements, 
causes  the  other  constituent  parts  of  the  sacrament  to  lose 
in  sacredness,  so  that  the  celebrant  does  not  even  feel  that 
the  service  is  fatally  mutilated  by  the  absence  of  a  con- 
gregation. To  us  the  presence  of  Christ  is  not  any  the 
less  real  because  it  is  not  so  rigidly  localised.  The  real  is 
not  that  which  occupies  a  limited  area  of  space,  but  that 
which  is  present  to  the  healthy  consciousness  of  a  personal 
being.  Strictly  speaking,  God  alone  possesses  complete 
personality,  and  that  alone  is  real  which  is  present  to  His 
mind.  But  human  beings  have  not  only  received  life  and 
personality  from  Him  as  a  gift ;  we  are  sharers  in  His  life, 
inasmuch  as  Christ,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  Inter- 
preter of  Christ  (I  do  not  think  we  need  dispute  as  to 
which  is  the  more  accurate  expression)  dwells  in  us.  In  so 
far  as  we  have  the  mind  of  Christ,  we  not  only  see  things 
as  they  really  are,  but  they  really  are  because  we  see  them. 
I  wish  to  commend  this  statement  to  the  consideration  of 
those  who  may  be  disposed  to  complain  that  I  have 
advocated  a  "  purely  subjective  "  theory  of  the  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  I  ask  them  to  consider  whether 
their  objection  has  any  meaning  at  all  except  on  the 
assumption  that  sensible  objects  have  a  real  and  inde- 
pendent existence,  whether  they  are  perceived  by  us  or 
not.  This  assumption,  which  philosophers  call  naive 
realism,  is  of  course  the  opinion  of  the  "  man  in  the 
street,"  but  the  Creeds  and  Sacraments  were  not  built 
upon  this  basis,  nor  can  they  be  understood  or  intelli- 
gently accepted  on  this  hypothesis.  The  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  then,  is  real  because,  when  we 
partake  of  it,  the  Spirit  itself  bears  witness  with  our  spirit 


3o8  THE   SACRAMENTS 

that  Christ  is  present  with  us.  And  it  is  His  will  that  we 
should  realise  His  presence  most  vividly  by  means  of 
those  symbols  which  He  has  appointed  for  us  and  ordered 
us  to  use.  Like  all  symbols,  they  are  attached  on  the  one 
side  to  the  real  and  eternal  verities,  and  on  the  other  to 
the  perishing  world  of  appearance.  It  is  nonsense  to  ask 
whether  the  elements  in  and  by  themselves  are  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  because  in  and  by  themselves  they 
are  nothing  at  all.  They  are  efficacia  signa,  and  their 
efficaciousness  is  a  matter  of  experience.  We  do,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  attain  by  them  to  a  deeper  consciousness 
of  our  union  with  Christ  than  by  any  other  means.  And 
they  have  this  effect  upon  us,  I  think,  in  proportion  as 
we  treat  them  as  symbols  of  a  spiritual  reality,  neither 
rationalising  the  Sacrament  into  a  mere  commemorative 
meal,  nor  materialising  its  symbolic  value  into  the 
"  substance  "  of  Christ's  Body.  Both  these  opposite  errors 
destroy  the  nature  of  a  sacrament  by  ignoring  its  symbolic 
character.  The  value  of  sacramental  symbolism  is  that  it 
provides  us  with  a  language  less  inadequate  than  any  other 
mode  of  representation,  by  which  earth  and  heaven  are 
brought  together  and  made  to  interpret  each  other.  In  the 
Holy  Communion  we  are  led  as  near  to  the  solution  of  the 
great  mystery  of  life  as  we  can  go  without  passing  within 
the  veil.  The  outward  and  inward,  which  are  so  mysteriously 
associated  in  all  our  experience,  are  here  by  faith  resolved 
into  the  higher  unity  which  we  believe  in  but  cannot 
grasp.  We  have  tried  again  and  again,  it  may  be,  either 
to  unify  or  to  dissociate  them  ;  and  have  found  that  we 
can  do  neither  without  falling  into  contradictions.  In  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  we  find,  not  a  solution  of 
the  problem,  but  a  symbol  of  the  solution.  If  it  were  fully 
intelligible,  it  would  not  be  a  true  symbol  of  what  is  beyond 
our  intelligence.  When  we  see  God  face  to  face  we  shall  no 
longer  need  even  the  highest  symbols.     But  here  on  earth 


CONSECRATION   OF   COMMON   LIFE     309 

we  do  need  them.  We  need  them  not  only  to  give  an  out- 
ward expression  to  our  highest  and  deepest  feelings,  but 
to  hallow  and  consecrate  by  association  our  most  common- 
place actions.  All  life  should  be  felt  by  us  to  be  sacra- 
mental. Whether  we  eat  or  drink,  or  whatever  we  do,  we 
should  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God.  "True  religion,"  as 
John  Smith,  the  Platonist,  wrote  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
"never  finds  itself  out  of  the  infinite  sphere  of  the  Divinity. 
A  good  man  finds  every  place  he  treads  upon  holy  ground. 
To  him  the  world  is  God's  temple ;  he  is  ready  to  say  with 
Jacob,  How  dreadful  is  this  place !  this  is  none  other  than 
the  house  of  God,  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven."  But  how 
much  easier  is  it  to  have  these  feelings  if  such  common 
substances  as  water,  bread,  and  wine,  possess  for  us  a 
peculiar  sacredness  as  the  vehicles  of  sacramental  grace! 
The  prayer  of  consecration,  as  Clement^  suggests,  should 
make  every  meal  an  Eucharist ;  the  laver  of  regeneration 
may  give  a  kind  of  dignity  even  to  our  common  ablutions. 
The  more  closely  we  can  associate  the  thought  of  the 
presence  of  God  with  these  common  actions,  the  better 
it  will  be  for  us.  We  cannot  be  wrong  in  seeing  God 
everywhere,  and  finding  symbols  of  His  love  to  man  in 
all  that  we  see  and  do;  and  I  believe  that  this  happy 
consciousness  of  His  presence  is  greatly  stimulated  by 
the  belief  that  He  gives  Himself  to  us,  in  a  pre-eminent 
degree,  in  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  it  is  only  as  members  of 
a  brotherhood  that  we  can  claim  to  receive  these  privileges. 
The  beautiful  maxim,  vides  fratrem,  vides  Doininum  tuum^ 
may  be  inverted  ;    when  we  see  our   Lord,  we  see  our 

*  {Paed.  ii.  i.  lo).  "He  that  eateth  eateth  unto  the  Lord  and  keepeth 
Eucharist  to  God.     The  religious  meal  is  an  Eucharist. " 

X  2 


3IO  THE   SACRAMENTS 

brethren.  Our  Church  forbids  the  Eucharist  to  be  cele- 
brated where  less  than  three  or  four  are  gathered  together, 
and  a  solitary  communion  is  rightly  felt  to  be  impossible. 
There  is  a  deep  mystery  about  our  relation  to  our  fellow- 
men,  to  whom  we  are  bound  by  closer  ties  than  can  be 
explained  on  the  hypothesis  that  we  are  independent, 
mutually  exclusive  individuals  ;  this  solidarity  of  humanity 
in  Christ  is  symbolised  in  the  Eucharist.  I  suppose  that 
we  should  understand  this  mystery  if  we  loved  God  and 
our  neighbour  as  He  loves  us  both;  but  the  rule  is 
universal  that  purification  must  have  her  perfect  work 
before  the  illumination  is  granted  to  us  which  leads  up  to 
the  fruition  of  the  umo  mystica. 

In  conclusion,  I  must  repeat  what  I  said  at  the  beginning 
of  this  essay,  that  the  true  sacramental  doctrine  for  every- 
one is  the  highest  and  most  spiritual  that  he  is  able  to 
realise  vividly  and  take  into  his  religion.  It  is  foolish  to 
expect  close  agreement,  and  very  useless  to  wrangle  about 
it.  Those  who  have  no  warm  religious  feelings  had  better 
keep  silence;  of  all  unprofitable  tempers  in  which  to 
approach  the  subject  that  of  cold  rationalism  is  the  worst 
And  next  to  it  in  badness  is  the  spirit  of  blatant  partisan- 
ship, which  adopts  a  set  of  catch-words  as  controversial 
weapons,  and  never  tries  to  understand  either  its  own 
tenets  or  those  of  its  opponents.  Gross  superstition, 
which  is  another  common  fault,  may  be  the  effect  either 
of  a  decay  of  faith,  which  has  left  the  symbol  high  and 
dry,  so  to  speak,  a  lifeless  lump  which  has  no  place  in 
heaven  or  earth;  or  it  may  be  merely  the  consequence 
of  crass  scientific  and  philosophic  ignorance.  The  latter  is 
not  a  religious  error,  and  it  is  seldom  worth  while  to  make 
a  frontal  attack  upon  it ;  but  the  more  mischievous  kind  of 
religious  materialism  can  only  be  cured  by  deepening  the 
spiritual  life,  and  so  revivifying  the  symbol.     We  may  all 


UNIO   MYSTICA  311 

expect  and  hope  that,  as  we  advance  in  faith  and  know- 
ledge of  God,  the  outward  visible  sign  will  become  a  more 
and  more  transparent  medium  of  the  inward  spiritual  grace. 
There  are  no  sacraments  in  heaven ;  but  it  is  only  when 
that  which  is  perfect  is  come  that  that  which  is  in  part 
shall  be  done  away, 


^  OFTH£ 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


PLYMOUTH 

WILLIAM  BRBKDON  AKD  SON 

PRINTERS 


From  Mr.  MURRAY'S  THEOLOGICAL  LISL 


BABINGTON,  the  Rev.  J.  A.,  M.A., 

Assistant    Master    of   Tonbridge    School.      Formerly    Scholar    of   New 
College,    Oxford. 

THE  REFORMATION.    A  Religious  and  Historical  Sketch.    DemySvo. 
12J.  net 
"This  masterly  essay    .    .    .    gives  evidence  on  every  page  of  wide  reading  and  of  a 
remarkable  power  of  condensation.    ...     It  is  a  notable  piece  of  work,  one   that 
deserves  to  be  widely  read." — Daily  Chronicle. 

BENSON,  THE  Rev.  R.  M.,  M.A., 

Sometime  Head  of  the  Cowley  Fathers. 

THE    WAR-SONGS    OF    THE    PRINCE    OF    PEACE.     A  De- 
votional Commentary  on  the  Psalter.     Two  vols.     Crown  8vo.     5^.  net  each. 

Vol.  I.— Helps  for  using  the  Psalter. 
Vol.  II.— A  Commentary  on  the  Psalter. 

BOYD-GARPENTER,  the  Right  Rev.  William, 

Bishop  of  Ripon. 

A  POPULAR  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH   OF   ENGLAND, 

from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Present  Day.     With  Illustrations.     Crown  8vo.     6s. 

"The  title  is,  perhaps,  hardly  wide  enough  for  the  contents;  one  would  almost  call 
the  book  a  history  of  Christianity  in  England.  ...  He  has  the  true  judicial  spirit, 
and  is  passionately  eager  to  be  entirely  fair  to  everyone.  His  history  is  impartial  to 
the  last  degree.  .  .  .  His  book  should  have  a  very  wide  circulation,  and  can  do 
nothing  but  good  wherever  it  is  read." — Morning  Post. 


FATHER  JOHN  (Sergieff). 
TRUTHS  ABOUT  GOD,  the  Church,  the  World,  and  the  Human 

Soul.      Translated    by  E.    E.   Goulaeff,   with    the    Assistance  of   Agnes    L. 
Illingworth.     i6mo.     Full  leather,  2s.  6d.  net. 

GAMBLE,  THE  Rev.  H.  R., 

Vicar  of  St.  Botolph's,  Aldersgate. 
SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.     The  Golden  Lectures  for  1900-1. 

Crown  8vo.      2^.  6d.  net. 

GOODWIN,  Harvey,  D.D.,  D.O.L., 

Late  Bishop  of  Carlisle. 
THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CREED.     Demy  8vo.     7^.  6d. 


From  Mr.   MURRAY'S  THEOLOGICAL  LIST. 


GOULBURN,  Edward  Meyrick,  P.P., 

Sometime  Dean  of  Norwich. 
THREE   COUNSELS   OF  THE   DIVINE   MASTER    FOR   THE 

CONDUCT  OF  THE  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.     Crown  8vo.     gs. 

THE  LORD'S  PRAYER.     Crown  8vo.     6s. 

"The  work  is  so  full,  so  rich  in  thought  and  learning,  so  unhurried,  so  calm  and 
earnest  at  the  same  time.  One  revels  in  such  a  volume.  It  is  entirely  representative 
of  the  culture  and  piety  of  a  typical  Anglican  divine.  We  have  known  nothing  better 
on  that  most  wonderful  and  beautiful  prayer." — Literary  World. 

GREEN,  William  Henry,  P.P.,  LL.P., 

Professor   of  Oriental    and    Old   Testament    Literature   in    Princetown 
Theological  Seminary. 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT— 

THE  CANON,     Crown  8vo.     ^s.  bd. 


HENSON,  THE  Rev.  H.  Hensley. 

GODLY    UNION    AND    CONCORD.      Sermons  preached  in  West- 
minster Abbey  in  the  Interest  of  Christian  Fraternity.    Crown  8vo.    6s.  net. 

CHURCH   PROBLEMS:  A  View  of  Modern  Anglicanism.    By  various 
authors.     Edited  by  the  Rev.  H.  Hensley  Henson.     Demy  8vo.     i2s.  net. 

HOARE,  H.  W., 

Late  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford,  now  an  Assistant  Secretary  to  the 
Board  of  Education,  Whitehall. 

THE    EVOLUTION    OF  THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE.     Being  an  His- 

torical  Sketch  of  the  Successive  Versions.  With  Illustrations.  Large  Crown  8vo. 
"js.  6d.  net. 

"Mr.  Hoare  .  .  .  has  read  well  and  widely.  .  .  .  We  cordially  commend  this 
book  for  what  it  professes  to  be — an  amateur  guide  to  amateur  students  and  lovers  of 
'the  greatest  of  English  classics  and  the  most  venerable  of  national  heirlooms.'" 

The  Tunes. 

HOGARTH,  Pavid  G.  (edited  by). 

Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 
AUTHORITY  AND  ARCH/EOLOGY  SACRED  AND  PROFANE. 

I  Essays  on  the  Relation  of  Monuments  to  Biblical  and  Classical  Literature.      By 

various  writers.  With  an  Introductory  Chapter  on  the  General  Value  of  Archaeo- 
logical Evidence,  its  Capabilities  and  Limitations,  by  the  Editor.  Second  edition. 
Demy  Svo.     i6s. 

"  It  would  be  easy  to  go  on  quoting  from  this  most  fascinating  volume  ;  but  we  hope 
that  sufficient  has  been  said  to  induce  many  of  our  readers  to  procure  it  for  themselves. 
They  will  find  it  to  be  a  storehouse  of  information  on  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats, 
and  the  expert  as  well  as  the  untrained  reader,  for  whom  it  is  primarily  intended,  can 
hardly  fail  to  appreciate  ii."— Guardian. 


From  Mr.   MURRAY'S  THEOLOGICAL  LIST. 


JOWETT,  Benjamin,  M.A., 

Late  Master  of  Balliol  College. 
SERMONS.    Edited  by  the  Very  Rev.  the  Hon.  W.  H.  Fremantle,  D.D., 

Dean  of  Ripon.     Crown  8vo.     7*.  6d.  each. 
Vol.  I.— College  Sermons. 
„     II.— Biographical  and  Miscellaneous. 
„     III.— On  Faith  and  Doctrine. 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.   PAUL  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS, 

GALATIANS,  AND  ROMANS.  With  Notes  and  Dissertations.  Edited  by 
Lewis  Campbell,  M.A.,  LL.D.  Two  vols.  Crown  8vo.  ^s.  6d.  net  each 
volume. 

LYTTELTON,  the  Right  Rev,  the  Hon.  A.  T.,  P.P., 

Bishop  of  Southampton. 

THE    PLACE    OF    MIRACLES    IN    RELIGION.      The    Hulsean 

Lectures  for  1901.     Crown  8vo.     55. 

"  Crisp  definiteness  of  statement  and  clear  enunciation  of  principles  .  .  .  will  be 
distinctly  welcome  to  those  who  feel  that  the  ultimate  test  of  revelation  is  not  its 
external  credentials,  but  its  power  to  stir  the  conscience."— G«ar<^zrt«. 

MOBERLY,  R.  P.,  P.P., 

Regius  Professor  of  Pastoral  Theology  in  the  University  of  Oxford, 
Canon  of  Christ  Church. 

CHRIST  OUR  LIFE.     Demy  8vo.     9j.net. 

ATONEMENT  AND  PERSONALITY.     Demy  8vo.     14J. 

MINISTERIAL  PRIESTHOOD.  Six  Chapters  preliminary  to  a  Study 
of  the  Ordinal.  With  an  Enquiry  into  the  Truth  of  Christian  Priesthood  and  an 
Appendix  on  the  recent  Roman  Controversy.  Second  edition,  with  a  New  Intro- 
duction.    8vo.     14J. 

"As  one  of  the  authors  of  'Lux  Mundi,'  Canon  Moberly's  exposition  is  distinguished 
by  the  high  qualities  which  have  made  the  school  to  which  the  writer  belongs  so 
influential  in  the  Church  of  England." — Manchester  Guardian. 

SALMON,  George,  P.P., 

Provost  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 

MENT.     Crown  Svo.     gs. 

LECTURES   ON   THE    INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

Crown  Svo.     9^. 

CATHEDRAL  AND  UNIVERSITY  SERMONS.    Crown  Svo.  zs.6d. 

"Common  sense,  clearly  put  argument,  learning  without  parade,  edifying  thought, 
and  an  easy,  pleasant  style  will  be  found  all  through  'Cathedral  and  University 
Sermons.'    .    .    .    no  one  can  read  them  without  profit  as  well  as  pie? sure." 

Leeds  Mercury. 


From  Mr.   MURRAY'S  THEOLOGICAL   LIST. 


STANLEY,  Arthur  Penrhyn,  P.P., 

Late  Dean  of  Westminster. 

SINAI    AND    PALESTINE    IN    CONNECTION    WITH    THEIR 

HISTORY.     With  Maps.     8vo.     12s. 
THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  HOLY  LAND.     Being  Extracts  from  the  above 

Work  for  Young  Persons.     With  Illustrations.     35-.  6^. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWISH  CHURCH, 

from  Abraham  to  the  Christian  Era.      With  Portrait,  Maps,  and  Plans.      Three 
vols.     Crown  8vo.     6s.  each. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  EASTERN  CHURCH. 

With  an  Introduction  on  the  Study  of  Ecclesiastical  History.     With  Map.     Crown 
8vo.     6s. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  SCOT- 

LAND,  delivered  in  Edinburgh  in  1872.     8vo.     7^.  6d. 

HISTORICAL  MEMORIALS  OF  CANTERBURY.    The  Landing  of 

Augustine— The  Murder  of  Becket— Edward  the  Black  Prince— Becket's  Shrine. 
With  Illustrations.     Crown  8vo.     6^. 

HISTORICAL     MEMORIALS    OF    WESTMINSTER     ABBEY, 

from  its  Foundation  to  the  Year  1876.     With  Illustrations.     15^. 

CHRISTIAN    INSTITUTIONS.      Essays  on    Ecclesiastical    Subjects. 
Crown  8vo.     6s. 

ESSAYS    CHIEFLY     ON    QUESTIONS    OF    CHURCH    AND 

STATE  FROM  1850  TO  1870.     Crown  Svo.     6s. 

SERMONS    FOR    CHILDREN,   including  The    Beatitudes  and  the 

Faithful  Servant.     Preached  in  Westminster  Abbey.     Crown  Svo.    3s.  6d. 

TIFFANY,  Charles  C,  P.P., 

Archdeacon  of  New  York. 

THE  PRAYER-BOOK  AND  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE;  or,  Con- 
ception of  the  Christian  Life  implied  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

With  an  Introduction  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Rochester.     Fcap. 
Svo.     5s. 

"Manly  in  tone,  and  seeks  to  promote  a  large,  healthful,  and  genuine  type  of 
reVigion." —Gias£^o7v  Herald. 

WESTGOTT,  B.  P.,  P.P.,  P.C.L., 

Late  Bishop  of  Durham. 
THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN.   With  Notes  and  Introduction.  Medium 

8vo.     loj.  6d. 

"We  do  not  think  there  is  any  work  on  St.  John's  Gospel  which  equals  this  one  in 
many-sided  excellence.  It  really  does  appear  as  if  the  masterly  and  comprehensive 
essay  in  which  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  here  dealt  with 
had  left  opponents  little  to  say  for  themselves."— Gwar</mw. 


London  :   JOHN  MURRAY,  Albemarle  Street,  W. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  m 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period.         ^ 


SEP  2>9  \m 


50m-7,'16 


I 


vc 


HU700 


I  n.i.'>7(> 


/ 


